[Logic]

Wrong to call terrorists 'madmen'

Very interesting article.

Discuss!

[Splinter]

I dont think terrorist are madmen or crazy but they are decieved to belive that they are doing the right thing.

[slow moe]

So now we can stop with the 'we just need to understand them more' routine?

[Logic]

Originally posted by slow moe:
So now we can stop with the 'we just need to understand them more' routine?

Actually it means that we should focus more on it. But it doesn't surprise me that some wouldn't understand that.

[dreilly1]

After reading the article, I think it's total rubbish. Are they trying to say that people who see instances of real violence against oppressed peoples on TV are acting rationally in killing the perpetrators? Or that murder is a rational political tool? I don't buy any of that.

Are terrorists not crazy simply because they act out of an overdeveloped sense of vengenance? Revenge may be a logical sane reaction to certain circumstances, but taking it to an extreme is certainly not healthy or logical.

[dcolton]

How can you even respond to an article filled with such rubbish? On second thought...maybe I a will agree...terrorists aren't crazy, they are just ****in' evil. Decieved pawns in a greater game where a 'skewed' few dream of nothing more than fulfilling the islamic idea of world domination.

We see it in Iraq as the masked cowards decapitate the heads of non-muslims while the lives of kidnapped muslims are spared (Turkish hostages).

We see it in Iraq as the cowards threaten to decapitate filipino hostages, despite the factthat the Phillipines agrees to withdraw their troops.

Wee see it in Iraq as the cowards threaten to murder any lawyer representing Saddam Hussein...not because of his war crimes, but because he didn't support am Islamic Government in Iraq.

The truth is...terrorists aren't crazy, they are pure evil who are dead set on introducing the world to death and whose ideal of paradise is anarchy, viglilantism(sp?) and death.

[Stradlater]

-------------------------Rubbish.-------------------------

The article isn't perfect, and overgeneralizes, but your post does so even more.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Stradlater:

-------------------------Rubbish.-------------------------

The article isn't perfect, and overgeneralizes, but your post does so even more.

Apparantly you have an opinion and it seems as if you are talented in the graphics arts department. COnsidering this is a discussion board, I would much rather be impressed by facts than a simple green arrow.

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Apparantly you have an opinion and it seems as if you are talented in the graphics arts department. COnsidering this is a discussion board, I would much rather be impressed by facts than a simple green arrow.

Facts are that two professors who have studied this subject disagree with the common claim that terrorists are madmen.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
Facts are that two professors who have studied this subject disagree with the common claim that terrorists are madmen.

Didn't I agree with that idea? They aren't madmen...they are evil men

[BRussell]

As far as I can tell, it's not even a myth, because nobody believes they're "crazy." (Members of the MacNN forum excluded). Schizophrenics wouldn't be capable of carrying out something like that. Psychopaths wouldn't be devoted to a cause, they'd kill only for purely selfish reasons. As for milder issues, like IQ or self-esteem - maybe, but that wouldn't be an issue of sanity.

I usually don't like socialization explanations, because I think most killers are born rather than made. But in this case they're clearly socialized. The culture rewards and encourages it. It devalues the lives of the victims, and tells everyone it's OK. There are no dissenting opinions present in the culture. They use the religion, which is immensely powerful in their lives, to justify the behavior. They immerse the terrorists in this culture from birth. It's a bit like the suicide cults that occur every so often, like Jonestown, but on a much wider scale.

The religious and political leaders are to blame for the culture that promotes this, not some mental disorder on the part of the individuals. It's a much larger problem than that, unfortunately.

Some other articles available on the web:

Genesis of suicide terrorism from the journal Science (click link and then get pdf file.

Genesis and future of suicide terrorism.

Sociology and psychology of terrorism, go to page and then download pdf file.

An arsenal of believers, from The New Yorker.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Apparantly you have an opinion and it seems as if you are talented in the graphics arts department. COnsidering this is a discussion board, I would much rather be impressed by facts than a simple green arrow.

Apparently my opinion will do nothing to change yours, so why bother? You overgeneralize and immediately nullify any credibility your arguments may (but don't) have.

Also, work on your spelling.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by Logic:
Facts are that two professors who have studied this subject disagree with the common claim that terrorists are madmen.

I've known enough professors to know that although it is a major event when two professors agree on anything, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are correct.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Apparently my opinion will do nothing to change yours, so why bother? You overgeneralize and immediately nullify any credibility your arguments may (but don't) have.

Also, work on your spelling.

Well if you share your opinon with a few original thoughts and supporting arguments, perhaps you could change my opinon. Instead, you choose to profess your competency of the English language by criticizing my spelling.

[voyageur]

Indeed, they are not madmen. Nor was Hitler (although his brain may have been addled by amphetamines in his last three years). It is just human to want to separate "us" and "them" in this way by telling ourselves that they are not normal people, not like us, and that's why they do the awful things they do. But I would add, although the leaders themselves may not be "madmen", the kinds of people they appeal to may be either normal or mentally troubled. Many of the boys recruited as suicide bombers are lonely kids who have had no successful relationships with girls, and who feel like failures.

May I make one more plug for reading the recently-released "Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill" by Jessica Stern (US terror expert, and also my former high school classmate ). She bravely interviews religious militants of all stripes in their lairs to find out why they do what they do.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dcolton:
How can you even respond to an article filled with such rubbish? On second thought...maybe I a will agree...terrorists aren't crazy, they are just ****in' evil. Decieved pawns in a greater game where a 'skewed' few dream of nothing more than fulfilling the islamic idea of world domination.

We see it in Iraq as the masked cowards decapitate the heads of non-muslims while the lives of kidnapped muslims are spared (Turkish hostages).

We see it in Iraq as the cowards threaten to decapitate filipino hostages, despite the factthat the Phillipines agrees to withdraw their troops.

Wee see it in Iraq as the cowards threaten to murder any lawyer representing Saddam Hussein...not because of his war crimes, but because he didn't support am Islamic Government in Iraq.

The truth is...terrorists aren't crazy, they are pure evil who are dead set on introducing the world to death and whose ideal of paradise is anarchy, viglilantism(sp?) and death.

And the winner is....

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Well if you share your opinon with a few original thoughts and supporting arguments, perhaps you could change my opinon. Instead, you choose to profess your competency of the English language by criticizing my spelling.

I've read your posts in the past, and anyone that believes in "evil" is doubtfully going to let people change his opinion.

Bottom line: there's no point in arguing with you. I'd rather debate with a tree.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And the winner is....

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
and anyone that believes in "evil" is doubtfully going to let people change his opinion.

Believes in evil? Eh? I would think anyone that didn't believe that evil existed would be a bit deluded.

e·vil __ _P___Pronunciation Key__(vl)
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est
Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.

Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

[Stradlater]

I wouldn't have expected anything less from you

I'd venture into absolute vs. relative morality and general subjectivity in the subject, but would there be a point when you are grounded by your unchangeable views?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
I've read your posts in the past, and anyone that believes in "evil" is doubtfully going to let people change his opinion.

Bottom line: there's no point in arguing with you. I'd rather debate with a tree.

Is the point of a debate to change someones opinon or to garner a greater understanding as to why and how a thought process can so different. From your post, I am assuming that you don't believe in good or evil...this intrigues me. But I will never get an understanding because you are limiting your discussion to clip art, spelling, and borderline insults.

Voyageur,

It is just human to want to separate "us" and "them" in this way by telling ourselves that they are not normal people, not like us, and that's why they do the awful things they do. But I would add, although the leaders themselves may not be "madmen", the kinds of people they appeal to may be either normal or mentally troubled. Many of the boys recruited as suicide bombers are lonely kids who have had no successful relationships with girls, and who feel like failures.

We will always seperate us and them...it is natural. There will always be opposing perceptions - that is why there is hate, war, and racism. Nonetheless, sanity can't be limited to cultural interpretation. I would argue that killing yourself and as many innocent victims as possible is quite insane by every definition. I would argue that preying on the less fortunate and manipulating them to represent the essence of insanity is quite representative of a madman...or my opinion, an evil man.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by dcolton:
From your post, I am assuming that you don't believe in good or evil...this intrigues me.

It depends on your individual definition of "good" and "evil", but the terms usually imply some sort of absolute level of morality, and it seems to also imply that "evil" people completely and totally deviate from morality or "good" of any kind. That seems close to impossible. "Evil" people are, for the most part and perhaps even completely, a thing of fiction in the general concept of a yin-yang-monochrome.

People aren't black or white.

People aren't even gray.

Everyone is a bunch of different grays that are seen differently by different people. In this case, it seems that you are willing to paint an entire group of people a single, dark shade of gray in a colorblind kind of way.

People are variegated. People may do things you don't agree with and things that you would consider "evil". Those people, however, would perhaps consider the indulgent Amero-Euro life to be just as "evil". Don't get me wrong, I don't condone any of the terroristic actions, but I don't think you can immediately and completely judge a single person, or, especially, a group.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
I wouldn't have expected anything less from you

Yes, shame on me for actually posting facts.

I'd venture into absolute vs. relative morality and general subjectivity in the subject, but would there be a point when you are grounded by your unchangeable views?

What about your unchangeable views? And since when is sticking to your views because you know them to be right somehow wrong or bad?

Silly...

[voyageur]

Originally posted by dcolton:
We will always seperate us and them...it is natural. There will always be opposing perceptions - that is why there is hate, war, and racism.

In fact this is what I said in my post. Perhaps reread it?

Nonetheless, sanity can't be limited to cultural interpretation. I would argue that killing yourself and as many innocent victims as possible is quite insane by every definition. I would argue that preying on the less fortunate and manipulating them to represent the essence of insanity is quite representative of a madman...or my opinion, an evil man.

No one said anything about cultural interpretations of insanity. What I said was that many of the suicide bombers are emotionally troubled boys, and extremists appeal to these type of people, no matter what the cause.

Is it "insane" to use recruit such people? No, it is perfectly rational, because it works. Is it evil? Of course.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes, shame on me for actually posting facts.

People, in the end, have different associations with different words, the dictionary doesn't always include implications, even when in the opinions of the majority.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What about your unchangeable views? And since when is sticking to your views because you know them to be right somehow wrong or bad?

Silly...

My views are changeable when a more rational alternative is offered. And right and wrong are as subjective as good and evil.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
People, in the end, have different associations with different words, the dictionary doesn't always include implications, even when in the opinions of the majority.

Yes, but when you are in the midst of belittling someone for believing in such ideals, you should really know what they mean. Not what you THINK they mean.

My views are changeable when a more rational alternative is offered.

Much like most anyone else. But rationality is as subjective as right or wrong. What you may see as rational others may not.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by voyageur:
In fact this is what I said in my post. Perhaps reread it?

I wasn't very clear...I was actually agreeing with you

No one said anything about cultural interpretations of insanity. What I said was that many of the suicide bombers are emotionally troubled boys, and extremists appeal to these type of people, no matter what the cause.

My opinion. I was trying to stay ahea of the game for those who argue what is considered "crazy" in one place is not necessary crazy in another. My point is - if there is any universal definition of crazy - murder and suicide would be included.

Is it "insane" to use recruit such people? No, it is perfectly rational, because it works. Is it evil? Of course.

We agree

[voyageur]

Okay. Got it now.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes, but when you are in the midst of belittling someone for believing in such ideals, you should really know what they mean. Not what you THINK they mean.

Overgeneralization is often an excuse to battle and belittle. Especially when Islam is the group rather than terrorists (the latter a group that is easier to attack, but also unfortunately easy for people to group all Muslims into). (dcolton: "the islamic idea of world domination")

As far as belittling based on definitions. I align evil with fairy tales and fiction; I know many others who do so as well... I explained why the use of "evil" is loaded to begin with, and that one should not use such a word to generalize with.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Much like most anyone else. But rationality is as subjective as right or wrong. What you may see as rational others may not.

Sometimes, sure--especially in cases moral and political; but with things like science, subjectivity in rationality becomes less and less of an issue (albeit not completely missing).

[Millennium]

Terrorists do tend to have a semblance of rationality, which allows them to otherwise function normally in society (apart from the whole killing-innocents thing). However, this is true of most psychopaths.

The fact is, someone willing to deliberately kill innocents -be it for some political cause or any other reason- is not a sane person. Perhaps not stark-raving bonkers, but definitely falling under the definition of a madman.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
I align evil with fairy tales and fiction; I know many others who do so as well... I explained why the use of "evil" is loaded to begin with, and that one should not use such a word to generalize with.

Good point.

[Sven G]

OK, having made clear that terrorists aren't madmen in general, the next question should maybe be: what could be done to prevent terrorism, at all levels (including the state level, of course: probably, after all, the most dangerous of all, with its clockwork-like military organization, etc.)...?

Hint: there isn't much love in terrorist acts, either by individuals, organizations, or the states themselves - only, probably, some form of inner desperation, due to lack of meaningful alternatives.

So it would certainly be highly ethical to try to build better alternatives to this corrupted world of today, in the here and now...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Terrorists do tend to have a semblance of rationality, which allows them to otherwise function normally in society (apart from the whole killing-innocents thing). However, this is true of most psychopaths.

The fact is, someone willing to deliberately kill innocents -be it for some political cause or any other reason- is not a sane person. Perhaps not stark-raving bonkers, but definitely falling under the definition of a madman.

I can agree with that.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
(dcolton: "the islamic idea of world domination")

I may be wrong, but I believe world domination is a tenant of the muslim faith. Perhaps one of our muslim friends could explain to me how I am misinterpreting this or how I am completely wrong.

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I may be wrong, but I believe world domination is a tenant of the muslim faith. Perhaps one of our muslim friends could explain to me how I am misinterpreting this or how I am completely wrong.

Domination wouldn't be the correct word IMO and but Islam being the only religion on earth is one of the goals.

[PacHead]

Terrorists are indeed madmen, and cowardly, perverted, murdering psychopaths. Logic is apparently try to paint a rosy picture of these guys, but the feeble attempts fail miserably.

How does one deal with these poor, misunderstand souls ?

One hunts them down like animals and captures/kills them.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Terrorists do tend to have a semblance of rationality, which allows them to otherwise function normally in society (apart from the whole killing-innocents thing). However, this is true of most psychopaths.

The fact is, someone willing to deliberately kill innocents -be it for some political cause or any other reason- is not a sane person. Perhaps not stark-raving bonkers, but definitely falling under the definition of a madman.

I guess this would define the Europeans who scattered about the planet during the last millennium and plundered and killed millions and millions off innocents and whole sub-human civilizations mostly in the name of Christianity.

Funny how our analysis always turns to others but we never analyze ourselves. I think we are all capable of being "MAD" or EVIL" or "just boys being boys". Or could it be what we are taught as we grow up and it becomes a belief and that one is doing the right thing. The end justifies the means kinda thing.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
I guess this would define the Europeans who scattered about the planet during the last millennium and plundered and killed millions and millions off innocents and whole sub-human civilizations mostly in the name of Christianity.

That was a direct offshoot of the Muslims at the time doing the same thing. These people were just trying to reverse what they done.

But you know, I would say the SAME thing about these people.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
Domination wouldn't be the correct word IMO and but Islam being the only religion on earth is one of the goals.

You are right, domination may not be the correct term if terrorism, war and beheadings did not exist.

This is why I believe appeasement is not an option when dealing with terrorists.

Overgeneralization is often an excuse to battle and belittle. Especially when Islam is the group rather than terrorists (the latter a group that is easier to attack, but also unfortunately easy for people to group all Muslims into). (dcolton: "the islamic idea of world domination")

Am I still overgeneralizing?

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Logic:
...Islam being the only religion on earth is one of the goals.

Yup, in the same vein as Christianity.

[BRussell]

Christianity wants "world domination," at least in the sense that evangelism and conversion are basic principles.

To return to another point: terrorists are almost certainly not psychopaths (i.e., anti-social personality disorder). A psychopath wouldn't submit to a group or religion or higher goal like a terrorist. And one of the hallmarks of a psychopath is that they wouldn't commit suicide. Psychopaths are the ultimate egoists, and self-preservation is their most important value.

They may be a bit more like the school-shooters in the US in that sense. They desire fame, they think they have a "cause," and in the end, they're simply committing suicide in a really dramatic fashion, while taking out some of their enemies at the same time.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Yup, in the same vein as Christianity.

Christianity doesn't have any such goals. Christianity is about free will.

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
You are right, domination may not be the correct term if terrorism, war and beheadings did not exist.

This is why I believe appeasement is not an option when dealing with terrorists.

Terrorism, war and beheadings have nothing to do with Islam.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Christianity wants "world domination," at least in the sense that evangelism and conversion are basic principles.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Christianity wants "world domination," at least in the sense that evangelism and conversion are basic principles.

Yes, Christianity wants it to be chooses by free will though. Not by force, or fear of beheading.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Logic:
Terrorism, war and beheadings have nothing to do with Islam.

Sure they do. Watch the news.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Christianity doesn't have any such goals. Christianity is about free will.

Are you saying that Christians would want every human being on earth to become Christians?

And are you implying Muslims want Islam to become "dominant" but not by the use of free will?

[Logic]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Sure they do. Watch the news.

I don't need the news to tell me what the book in my hand says.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Logic:
I don't need the news to tell me what the book in my hand says.

I don't base my conclusions on what "some" book allegedly says or not. I base my conclusions on the actions of followers of the book.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Logic:
Are you saying that Christians would want every human being on earth to become Christians?

Of course. Why not? They would want it to happen through free will though .

And are you implying Muslims want Islam to become "dominant" but not by the use of free will?

I am saying that SOME Muslims want Islam to become THE wold wide religion by any means necessary.