Boston Marathon: Is terrorism ever justified?

[teamsaint]

You really think so? OK, I can see in bankers it is and whose bonus is bigger, but otherwise? No, I cannot see it, ok, maybe who has the latest trainers, but does it have anything to do with the title of this thread?

Shall we discuss it on another thread? Happy to start one at some point.
The points I have made really are meant seriously(for once !!)

[Beef Oven]

not arrived...

You sure?

[Anna]

Shall we discuss it on another thread? Happy to start one at some point.
The points I have made really are meant seriously(for once !!)

Gladly. Oh, I think I might go to bed. Not much chance of discussing Engels or Marx or Jesuits now with Richard Barrett is there?!!! (as for competitive sewing :biggrin:)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

With the possible exception of a few individuals born with physiological irregularities (which Richard will know far more about than me), I don't think that people are born "good" or "bad" (or "innocent" for that matter): they are born with an instinct for survival, and in order to survive, they will adapt their behaviour accordingly. If their environment enables them to survive by means of co-operation and altruistic behaviour, that will be the way that they will behave. If they discover that competition and violence are what best ensures their survival, that will be the direction they will take. And there are infinitissimal gradations of behaviour between the extremes.

No; terrorism is never "justified" - but it can often be "explained" (which is not to say that it can be "condoned" or "defended", which is what some people think you're trying to do when you discuss these issues). There are times where, when people in positions of power repeatedly ignore or clamp down on legitimate and reasonable demands for justice and liberty, it can be felt by the victims of oppression that violence is their only resource. Desperation can lead even the most decent human being to commit acts of atrocity. And, when given a "voice" that is respected, even people who have commited the most vile acts of atrocity can perform acts of rich, compassionate humanity.

I don't think I've communicated any of this very well here - and very possibly none of it is of relevance to the Boston bombings. Socio-political environment; context; history ... But it's so vast a topic ...

[Richard Barrett]

If their environment enables them to survive by means of co-operation and altruistic behaviour, that will be the way that they will behave. If they discover that competition and violence are what best ensures their survival, that will be the direction they will take.

There it is. So you might imagine that trying to move towards a society where cooperation and not (as now) competitiveness is rewarded would be a good idea, right? I'd better not start on Marx though, it might get Anna all necessary when she ought to be tucked up with her Dylan Thomas.:whistle:

[Anna]

I'd better not start on Marx though, it might get Anna all necessary when she ought to be tucked up with her Dylan Thomas.:whistle:

Well, I'm glad you said it might get me all necessary instead of all unnecessary, which is the usual male response.
Oh, it's unbelievable, you wait hours for a Marxist who knows his Dylan to come along - and then you can't keep your drooping eyes open and have to go to bed with a little ginger man in a paper bag !! :biggrin: And there was me, with a flagon of eels, lambs kidneys and chips at the ready ...... :blush:

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

it is an unwarranted presumption that societies have moved to cooperation; much more the case that we have moved away from it to competitiveness and inequality

it is also absolutely necessary to distinguish within-group violence from between-group violence; the latter is far crueller and more murderous and opportunistic, bringing approval and rewards for the perpetrators from their in group

[Richard Barrett]

a Marxist who knows his Dylan

I wouldn't really claim that - RS Thomas is more my kind of Welsh poet, ever since "doing" him at school.

[Pabmusic]

With the possible exception of a few individuals born with physiological irregularities (which Richard will know far more about than me), I don't think that people are born "good" or "bad" (or "innocent" for that matter): they are born with an instinct for survival, and in order to survive, they will adapt their behaviour accordingly. If their environment enables them to survive by means of co-operation and altruistic behaviour, that will be the way that they will behave. If they discover that competition and violence are what best ensures their survival, that will be the direction they will take. And there are infinitissimal gradations of behaviour between the extremes.

No; terrorism is never "justified" - but it can often be "explained" (which is not to say that it can be "condoned" or "defended", which is what some people think you're trying to do when you discuss these issues). There are times where, when people in positions of power repeatedly ignore or clamp down on legitimate and reasonable demands for justice and liberty, it can be felt by the victims of oppression that violence is their only resource. Desperation can lead even the most decent human being to commit acts of atrocity. And, when given a "voice" that is respected, even people who have commited the most vile acts of atrocity can perform acts of rich, compassionate humanity.

I don't think I've communicated any of this very well here - and very possibly none of it is of relevance to the Boston bombings. Socio-political environment; context; history ... But it's so vast a topic ...

Good post.

Terrorism is never - can never be - justified unless one can distinguish the precise circumstances in which it is OK to kill an eight-year-old from when it would not be. And the deaths are the fault of those who made and planted the bombs, not of a President or a political system, or a culture. But our Western, guilt-ridden hand-wringing is very often used to explain away such atrocities under the guise of listening to others, as if this were Question Time. Whoever planted those bombs presumably had reasons but they are unlikely to be exactly what we imagine. It is interesting: much commentary I have read (not here, I add) varies depending on whether the bombers are thought to be Middle-Eastern sympathisers or home-grown anti-government gun fanatics who don't like Obama's wish to control them a bit more.

Your first paragraph is a little misleading, though, since it implies we are born with a 'blank sheet' and we adapt according to our environment. Evolution doesn't work quite like that. We have evolved over a few million years to have empathy with others and to co-operate (this behaviour is observed in many species) so you could say that we are naturally pre-disposed to do so. Some individuals will not be, but evolution (of these sorts of traits at least) is not always apparent at the individual level - it it change in the frequencies of genes over time within a population. Plotting a trait within a population will produce a bell-curve.

[jayne lee wilson]

"...Circular as our way
is, it leads not back to that snake-haunted
garden, but onward to the tall city
of glass that is the laboratory of the spirit."

....."Beyond the horizons
of our knowledge, in deserts
not of its own making, the self
sought for the purpose that had brought it there."

R.S.Thomas

[scottycelt]

Nobody (except the Pope maybe) is interested in you "tamely withdrawing" anything. It isn't the word "savages" that's unhelpful, it's the idea that there's something... I don't know... natural, or inexorable, about them. The problem with your concept of "battling and defeating" terrorists and mass murderers is that by the time you get around to it the damage is done. What I'll try once more to say is that it might be a good idea to investigate what drives people to do such things, so that perhaps they could be prevented from happening. In the case of events like the September 2001 attacks on the USA this might involve looking at why so many Muslim people think of the USA as their enemy.

As for people like Breivik cropping up in any society, how can you be sure? Have you studied all of them? Are there social structures in which they are less likely? (Norway is a European society with the same structures and problems as any other, but a smaller population, that's all.) Mightn't it be a good idea for people to be interested in questions like that, rather than stamping the word "savages" on the problem and forgetting about it until the next time?

Your occasional unsubtle and rather snide little references to the Pope and religion clearly demonstrate your own issues regarding attempting to understand others. We all have our own little prejudices, without a doubt.

I have to confess no little amusement that some here (not just yourself) appear to be under some illusion that I fail to understand what you are saying. I understand only too well, and it is rather they who are clearly uncomprehending of what I am saying.

We already know why Breivik, for example, committed his horrific crimes, He is an extreme, fanatical racist. Why? Well, what made Hitler a Nazi? There is no evidence that either was in some way mentally ill (in Breivik's case that was professionally confirmed) or suffered sexual abuse in childhood.

I maintain they simply chose the path of evil. Like some bankers chose the path of greed, which the Left has absolutely no difficulty in comprehending.

You don't believe that people can be 'evil' (well, maybe apart from those nasty, horrid capitalists!). I do. I also believe people can follow the path of being 'good'. Presumably you don't, as to contend that, and not the other, would be wholly illogical.

So we are never going to agree, are we?

[Richard Barrett]

evolution (of these sorts of traits at least) is not always apparent at the individual level - it it change in the frequencies of genes over time within a population.

Although of course in human behaviour it's usually difficult or impossible to separate the effects of evolution by natural selection from the effects of 30 000 years or so of cultural "evolution". By the time people came to live in settled communities, the latter was probably much more important in determining how their internal relationships would function, one reason why appeals to "human nature" being irrevocably fixed one way or the other tend to derive from assumptions rather than evidence.

I can't really understand why there's so much acceptance of things like "individual acts of terrorism" as some kind of facts of life that are bound to take place in "any society". In most existing societies, yes, but that could just be because the way societies have evolved places individuals under stress, to which some react violently, as fern implies. I don't think it's a case, as Anna suggests, of people not wanting to accept blame, but of the people in charge actually benefitting from the causes of the aforementioned stress (in economic terms particularly) and thus having a strong interest in asserting that it's all just the way things are and can't be changed.

That's a nice quote, Jayne, just the kind of thing I vaguely had in mind when mentioning RST. :smiley:

[Pabmusic]

Although of course in human behaviour it's usually difficult or impossible to separate the effects of evolution by natural selection from the effects of 30 000 years or so of cultural "evolution"...

Oh yes. I quite agree. It's very complex.

[Richard Barrett]

Your occasional unsubtle and rather snide little references to the Pope and religion clearly demonstrate your own issues regarding attempting to understand others.

How true. I do find it very difficult to understand how people who profess a belief in a beneficent god so often have such a depressingly negative view of humanity. "Choosing the path of evil... the path of greed" - where are these paths exactly? This is the 21st century, not The Pilgrim's Progress.

[Beef Oven]

Your occasional unsubtle and rather snide little references to the Pope and religion clearly demonstrate your own issues regarding attempting to understand others. We all have our own little prejudices, without a doubt.

I have to confess no little amusement that some here (not just yourself) appear to be under some illusion that I fail to understand what you are saying. I understand only too well, and it is rather they who are clearly uncomprehending of what I am saying.

We already know why Breivik, for example, committed his horrific crimes, He is an extreme, fanatical racist. Why? Well, what made Hitler a Nazi? There is no evidence that either was in some way mentally ill (in Breivik's case that was professionally confirmed) or suffered sexual abuse in childhood.

I maintain they simply chose the path of evil. Like some bankers chose the path of greed, which the Left has absolutely no difficulty in comprehending.

You don't believe that people can be 'evil' (well, maybe apart from those nasty, horrid capitalists!). I do. I also believe people can follow the path of being 'good'. Presumably you don't, as to contend that, and not the other, would be wholly illogical.

So we are never going to agree, are we?

Scotty, give yourself a break. The only evil people are, as you say, 'capitalists'. Terrorists and terrorism are not to be condemned in the same way as 'capitalists'; they and it, are to be contextualised, undesrstood and invariably the root cause is to be traced back to a 'capitalist' men (see post #56).

You're right, you won't reach any agreement. 'Marxist' thinking is a one-way street. Their way or no way, and that is why you're banging your head against a wall.

I realised pretty early on in this thread that I started, that it had been hijacked, as a number of threads have been of late , by one-way thinking. So I dropped out as soon as there was an agreement that terrorism is never justifiable.

You need to understand that a few people who express views that are not Marxist, but benign all the same, will be tolerated in this hijacking - you are not one of those people. I'm off the the gym to work off that infeasibly large breakfast that I just scoffed.