Boston Marathon: Is terrorism ever justified?

[Richard Barrett]

The only evil people are, as you say, 'capitalists'

(yawn) No, there's no such thing as "evil people", that's for the superstitious.

So I dropped out

But then you thought you'd drop back in to tell everyone why you dropped out. Thanks for that.

[scottycelt]

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.

You misrepresent what I said. I also mentioned the path to 'good', which you rather conveniently omitted.

I take neither a positive nor negative view of humanity merely, imv, a realistic one based on all the available evidence, whatever the century.

Are you now saying it's not our fault if we are needlessly greedy it must be due to someone or something else ... ?

[scottycelt]

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.

Enjoy the work-out Beefy!

You are right, of course, but I've always been considered a bit of a head-banger, anyway ... so nothing to lose. :winkeye:

[Julien Sorel]

Are you now saying it's not our fault if we are needlessly greedy it must be due to someone or something else ... ?

I may have missed something, but has RB or anyone said the Boston Marathon bombs weren't the fault or the responsibility of the people who planted them?

Saying that people generally commit terrorist acts for a reason (to achieve some end) isn't the same as saying they aren't culpable. If you treat every terrorist act as some expression of innate evil without specific content then you are locked into a cycle where there's no hope for a way out, surely? (Your example of someone who has a row with a neighbour would apply to appalling crimes like random shootings, etc. Not to a planned terrorist attack, I'd have thought).

Do you think someone who drops a bomb from a military plane knowing that, however it's supposed to be targeted, civilians (including children) will highly probably (or certainly) be killed or maimed is at fault (is evil)? Or someone who operates an unmanned drone in the knowledge that those drones have on many occasions killed and maimed civilians (including children)? Or the person who authorises those attacks (President Obama)?

[Richard Barrett]

I also mentioned the path to 'good', which you rather conveniently omitted.

I'm happy to include it also among these mediaeval paths, no problem.

I take neither a positive nor negative view of humanity

You regard terrorists as "savages" who will "crop up in any society". (As I asked before, have you studied all societies in order to generalise like that?) That strikes me as a negative view of humanity because it denies the possibility of any improvement, as does your talk about choosing paths.

Are you now saying it's not our fault if we are needlessly greedy it must be due to someone or something else ... ?

No, what I am saying is that there's always a whole complex of reasons both internal and external behind people's attitudes and actions. As someone else said, if we live in a society set up to reward greed (which we do), more people will exhibit that attribute.

[Pabmusic]

The problem I have with 'evil' people ('good' ones too, by analogy) is that it is a handy label to distance ourselves from human behaviours. If there are evil people, it is possible to imagine an 'evil' that lurks out there somewhere, infecting some people (but not us). It's long been recognised that prisons are useful because they clearly distinguish the bad (those inside) from the good (us) and we do not need to address 'criminal' behaviour in any greater depth. The demonisation of people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and all the rest, somehow absolves them from what were human actions. They were 'evil' - how else would they have behaved?

It's even possible to argue that, if a person is truly 'evil', they can hardly be held to account - they're evil (and not like us), so why hold them to account for actions that are wholly down to their evil nature? Presumably they can't choose (as Scotty seems to suggest) an 'evil path' in reality - they just are 'evil'. When were any of you made such an offer - you all consciously rejected it, of course - a sort of Devil's 11-plus?

Actions are evil - or have evil consequences - and are done by humans. Some humans do more evil actions that others, or worse ones. But they remain the actions of humans, committed by humans for human reasons. The moment you introduce 'evil' as an independent thing, you absolve humans from some or all of the blame, since to blame them would be to hold them to account for not having the moral strength to resist 'evil'. You also begin to demonise 'evil'.

[scottycelt]

I'm happy to include it also among these mediaeval paths, no problem.
You regard terrorists as "savages" who will "crop up in any society". (As I asked before, have you studied all societies in order to generalise like that?) That strikes me as a negative view of humanity because it denies the possibility of any improvement, as does your talk about choosing paths.
No, what I am saying is that there's always a whole complex of reasons both internal and external behind people's attitudes and actions. As someone else said, if we live in a society set up to reward greed (which we do), more people will exhibit that attribute.

People who commit savage acts can fairly be described as 'savages'. Like those who espouse capitalism can fairly be described as 'capitalists'.

I fail to see your problem with this perfectly ordinary word. It's even listed in my dictionaries (ah, we always have to return to those!) with the relevant synonyms.

Are you suggesting there is no human 'greed' among socialists and Marxists? Quite a few multi-millionaires have recently had to 'come out' in Hollande's Government in France.

People are simply people prone to lining their own nests whether they claim to be capitalists or socialists. Some, thankfully a lot less, are also prone to killing their fellow human-beings. It's always been the same, and still is, even in our relatively sophisticated non-medieval age.

Of course, we should always try and reform those who commit evil and savage acts as well as condemning and punishing them. Yet condemnation and punishment itself is an integral part of the reform process. Without it where is the incentive to reform?

[Richard Barrett]

socialists and Marxists (...) Hollande's Government in France

Sorry, I don't see any connection between those two categories.

Does "punishment" give an "incentive to reform"? How does this work? In general, going to prison tends not to reform people; nor does it deter others from committing violent acts.

[MrGongGong]

People who commit savage acts can fairly be described as 'savages'. Like those who espouse capitalism can fairly be described as 'capitalists'.

I fail to see your problem with this perfectly ordinary word. It's even listed in my dictionaries (ah, we always have to return to those!) with the relevant synonyms.

So here we go again folks ......................:yikes:
Words only mean what they say in your dictionary
and have no other connotations

There is a big problem with using the word because of how it's been used in the past !
I don't have to remind you that language changes
"Cock" is a perfectly ordinary word (in fact i've got one under my sink) BUT in some contexts its NOT what you might say to your grandmother

(and i'm avoiding the men in frocks for you :winkeye:)

[Richard Barrett]

There is a big problem with using the word because of how it's been used in the past !

Also, every dictionary will give one definition (if not the first one) of the noun "savage" as some variation on "a person from a primitive society". So, continuing on that tack, do people in primitive societies commit acts we could call terrorist? Something I recently read, Jared Diamond's The World until Yesterday, contrasts present-day Western society with traditional village societies in Papua New Guinea and elsewhere. While violence is by no means absent from the latter societies, no case is mentioned of violence carried out by individuals against society (or some subset of it) in the way we would call "terrorist". Therefore "savages" in this sense are not terrorists - generally they're more obedient to the laws of their society than people in the West are to theirs. So while, as MrGG implies, the use of the word in the present context is racist, it's also inaccurate even in those terms.

[Beef Oven]

(yawn) No, there's no such thing as "evil people", that's for the superstitious.

But then you thought you'd drop back in to tell everyone why you dropped out. Thanks for that.

Smug is a delicious word, but one rarely has the opportunity to use it in everyday conversation.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i find the persistence of personally abusive posting most unwelcome and would ask all to mind their manners please

it is entirely possible to discuss such matters without recourse to name calling and personal attacks

we are members of a community here, identified by our interest in Radio 3, its mission and achievement as well as the content it might be expected to compass - this does include matters of social, historical and political importance and it is fit that they be discussed here ....

how, do you suppose, on the one hand can we be taken as a credible opinion when criticising the R3 for dumbing down the content [gardening tools anyone]; while on the other hand, we exhibit such naive bad manners as in this thread and others of its ilk?

[Beef Oven]

i find the persistence of personally abusive posting most unwelcome and would ask all to mind their manners please

it is entirely possible to discuss such matters without recourse to name calling and personal attacks

we are members of a community here, identified by our interest in Radio 3, its mission and achievement as well as the content it might be expected to compass - this does include matters of social, historical and political importance and it is fit that they be discussed here ....

how, do you suppose, on the one hand can we be taken as a credible opinion when criticising the R3 for dumbing down the content [gardening tools anyone]; while on the other hand, we exhibit such naive bad manners as in this thread and others of its ilk?

You could always try nipping it in the bud instead of waiting for the usual suspects to post :erm:

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

it would be for the best if whoever it might be, me from time to time no doubt, nipped it in the bud for themselves ..

[Bryn]

So, it appears to have been the work of two brothers from Russia, near the Chechnyan border, one of whom is now dead, along with a police officer. I have been following coverage by both Al Jazeera and the Beeb this morning, with the former just about having the edge for me.

http://rt.com/news/chechnya-suspect-boston-bombing-110/