Philosophy Now Forum

From today's Guardian, following yesterday's attack in Westminster:

"All analysts of terrorism reiterate that it is not an ideology. Guns and bombs pose no “existential” threat to a country or society. Politicians who exploit it to engender fear are cynics with vested interests. Terrorism is a methodology of conflict. There is no real defence against madmen who kill, though it’s worth restating that London’s streets have probably never been safer places."

Any thoughts?

I note with approval that The Muslim Council was quick to respond. These terrorist events serve to separate the sheep from the goats. So far the sheep are the great majority. I believe that terrorism within a free country is poor strategy for that reason

I'd also like to add that I wish the press, et al would stop giving so much air-time to terrorists as they are just criminals and seek the air of publicity which this insatiable 24-hour news babble feeds. We didn't do this with the IRA so why with 'Islamic' terrorists?

Arising_uk wrote:I'd also like to add that I wish the press, et al would stop giving so much air-time to terrorists as they are just criminals and seek the air of publicity which this insatiable 24-hour news babble feeds. We didn't do this with the IRA so why with 'Islamic' terrorists?

I agree. My Aunt in Belfast made the same comment as yourself , the terrorists were
"rowdies".

ForCruxSake wrote:From today's Guardian, following yesterday's attack in Westminster:

"All analysts of terrorism reiterate that it is not an ideology. Guns and bombs pose no “existential” threat to a country or society. Politicians who exploit it to engender fear are cynics with vested interests. Terrorism is a methodology of conflict. There is no real defence against madmen who kill, though it’s worth restating that London’s streets have probably never been safer places."

Any thoughts?

"Terrorism is a methodology of conflict. There is no real defence against madmen who kill, though it’s worth restating that London’s streets have probably never been safer places."

The premise assumes the killer is a madman.
He could just as likely be a calculating, rational terrorist.

Accepting the assumption, the premise is effectively correct, but not literally correct.

Terrorist genocide would end terrorism.

Overwhelming unethical and immoral force upon terrorists would end terrorism. If a terrorist knows with certainty what will happen to himself and to the innocents whom he loves if he walks the terroristic road, he will not walk that road. It would take awhile to go 100%, about as long as it takes for mothers to teach their children this reality.

The question is, would terroristic tactics be required to assert unethical and immoral force? If yes, then terrorism wins because terrorism now exists as a tactic for both sides.

However, if the terrorist knows beyond doubt, with total certainty, that what he has done in the propaganda videos will be done to himself and the innocents whom he loves, and the innocents whom they love, that is certainty. That is not terrorism.

It is also genocide, which no civilized nation would condone. And as a preemptive coda, just in case any twisted interpretations of the analysis should happen to appear, which has been known to happen, as a civilized human bean I personally do not condone such behavior, either.

Walker wrote:
He could just as likely be a calculating, rational terrorist.

Accepting the assumption, the premise is effectively correct, but not literally correct.

Terrorist genocide would end terrorism.

Overwhelming unethical and immoral force upon terrorists would end terrorism....

The traditional reason for terrorism is to provoke just that reaction. The enemy of the terrorist are the moderates, in this case those Muslims who are integrated into society. By provoking an indiscriminate backlash, the terrorist can demonstrate that this integration was an illusion, that society never really accepted them, so that their only defenders are the terrorists.

In this they will find allies amongst the extremists of the opposite side, who also want to polarize society along exactly the same lines as the terrorists. Both sides will therefore make as much out of this attack as possible, for example Fox News claiming that it has 'shut down' London.

The IRA campaign was far worse, yet it did not either shut down London or provoke any backlash, nor was it necessary to conduct a 'genocide' against Irish republican sympathisers.

I note that on the same day as this attack some US army veteran killed a random black man with a sword, because he hated black people and wanted to 'make a statement'. I'm sure there were similar incidents elsewhere. It happens.

Politicians love these attacks. It means they get to 'justify' bombing the shit out of ordinary muslims in their own countries. Politicians are well aware that most people are complete morons and incapable playing join-the-dots. The British should spend more time thinking, and less time being PC fuckwits. I'm sure the average muslim would prefer you to stick your fake 'tolerance' up your collective arse and just stop destroying their countries. Stop murdering muslims and muslims will more than likely stop killing you. Quite simple really. How long since there was an IRA bombing?

Terrorism is mostly the poor on the mighty and thus is no real threat to the total structure of power

One nutcase runs rampage with a car and a couple of kitchens knives and he's branded as a person who hates freedom.

In other news; an average of 4.6 people died on the road, like they did today, the yesterday and shall tomorrow.

Which is the greatest existential threat?

I feel sorry for the one who is only .6 of a person.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I feel sorry for the one who is only .6 of a person.

I feel sorry for the excluded 0.4 of a person. Totally overlooked minority.

Who feels sorry for the terrorist?

... which he was by his actions, which were pretty damn terrifying.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:One nutcase runs rampage with a car and a couple of kitchens knives and he's branded as a person who hates freedom.

In other news; an average of 4.6 people died on the road, like they did today, the yesterday and shall tomorrow.

Which is the greatest existential threat?

The gun of the hand is for one purpose, to kill. And people die as a result.

Terrorism is for one purpose, to terrorize. And people die as a result.

Driving in a car does not have the purpose to kill, or the purpose to terrorize. And people die as a result.

Do you see the distinction now?

The existential threat follows purpose, for purpose is clever, adaptable, and persistent.

This rules out the weather as an existential threat. Weather is just something else to mitigate. Climate too.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I feel sorry for the one who is only .6 of a person.

Well at least, I suppose he didn't have as much to lose.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I feel sorry for the one who is only .6 of a person.

Find out what the word 'average" means.
As in the sentence "vegetariantaxidermy's intelligence is way below average."