Re: The Net and Terrorism

["Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>]

TCM breaks a longstanding personal policy of never replying
to my posts directly. (well, thanks.)  realize that my 
speculation on his position is largely associated with the
vacuum of his continually refusing to discuss key points of his
essays.

>My article made my points, so I won't rewrite it here. You are of course
>not required to agree. You are free to live in crowded cites--near "soft
>targets." You are welcome to lobby for world peace and for economic changes
>to lessen terrorism.

lobbying is of marginal efficacy. I was not advocating lobbying congress.

imagine that all the palestinians had good paying jobs, for example. 
how many of them would be into rock-throwing and terrorism?  of course their 
own attitudes make such a thing very difficult. they may not have any
skills or reject a job even if offered one. I'm not saying such a thing
is easy. the fact that it is so elusive is proof of how difficult such
a thing is.

what you are failing to address is that terrorism is bred from DISCONTENT.
I do believe that it is possible for groups to live together without
DISCONTENT.  such a thing is incredibly difficult to achieve, but 
definitely impossible if one starts with the premise, as you do, that
such a thing is impossible. you will often find that some groups, if
given minor concessions, are quite aghast at such overtures. but when
both parties are stuck in "kill my enemies" mode, such a thing is
not conceivable of course.

I do NOT believe that living in the world is a zero-sum game as you
seem to suggest. your use of the term is very compelling. do you
believe human life is always at the expense of other human life?
if so I can see why you think terrorism and violence are inevitable
and likely to worsen (e.g. with the increase in population). but if
you start from a different premise, that human problems can be solved,
you may get a different reality.  (interesting though,
this dark view of the world as
a zero-sum game does seem to influence a lot of thinking here on this
list).

>(I think this is mostly hopeless. No matter how "nice" conditions get, for
>game-theoretic reasons there will be some groups seeking changes.)

"hopeless"-- couldn't have characterized your position better myself.

"groups seeking changes" == "terrorists"?? quite a leap of terminology. notice
that it is quite possible to PEACEFULLY work for changes without resorting
to violence. those that do resort to violence are at the most extreme
ends of the spectrum. terrorism is like an adult having the ultimate
temper tantrum. "if you don't give me what I want, I'll blow up a building".

>I've never made any claims, explicit or implicit, that such acts are "for
>no particular reason." Various groups--religious, political, corporate,
>etc.--see advantages and disadvantages in various course of action. (This
>sounds nebulous, but I am trying to avoid citing specific examples; I'm
>trying to separate out the reactions people have to specific camps and look
>at the bigger picture.)

again, a blurring of degrees of extremism. of course there will always
be conflicting demands of different groups in the world. but why does
this equate to an inevitable rise in terrorism? I think we should study
why it is that some people don't resort to violence to solve their
problems, and some do, and try to pinpoint the difference in their
psychologies. terrorists are not insane in a certain sense. they have
just pushed themselves out of the envelope.

>I never claimed that terrorists are doing it just for the fun of
>it.

I didn't say you claimed that.
what you seem to suggest an inherent irrationality to terrorism such
that it is often senseless. I'm trying to point out that terrorists
are not just insane people, and that we are not always going to have 
lots of terrorists just because there is always an insane percentage of
the human populace.

I would suggest that terrorism in this country is only going to get
worse if the government becomes more extreme. unfortunately, responses
to terrorism tend to increase the extremism of govt, so it is difficult
to separate cause from effect. I suspect we are already in this
negative feedback loop. but ask yourself, would tim mcveigh have
bombed the OK building if:

1. the FBI hadn't tried to cover up waco and ruby ridge
2. the FBI disciplined their agents, firing some on the spot
3. the FBI admitted making "egregious errors"
4. the FBI compensated families with cash without them having
to sue the government first

in retrospect, are any of these things not the "right thing to do" anyway?
didn't the government eventually end up doing most of them anyway
in the long run? what if they had apologized from the beginning?

now, I am not saying what Mcveigh did was justified-- what I am saying
is that the government could have potentially averted inflaming him
and a zillion other militia members by a particular course of action
that was inconceivable to them because of their need to preserve
their testosterone-laced image of manhood... I gues being a government
agent means never having to say you're sorry....  but terrorists are
subject to the exact same kind of extremism of course. the extreme
government and the extreme terrorist are the perfect match for each
other and continually inflame each other more.

>You and others are of course welcome to lobby for people to be nice to each
>other. Peace and brotherhood, rah rah.

"lobby". you are using your own straw man against me.   I don't advocate
lobbying or petitioning congress in particular 
to change the world. such measures play a small role. (btw, you probably
think mother teresa is an idiot based on that sentence)

>I believe there are basic game-theoretic reasons which make conflict and
>jockeying for power "not surprising."

again, a conflation of regular, routine conflict and disagreement
with extreme violence and terrorism. why can some people solve
their problems, or postpone their settlement, without resorting to violence?
why can't others?

>>the point is that there is no physical strategic value from bombing
>>symbols.  I was making the point that terrorism is extremely symbolic
>
>And the bombing in Beirut is explained how?

it was a highly symbolic action. the palestinians are enraged that
israel is largely supported through american dollars and military
support.

>Bear in mind that the British thought the Colonial tactic of shooting at
>them from behind trees--a "terrorist" tactic borrowed from the Indians who
>used it on the colonists--was immoral and unsportsmanlike. Ditto our
>feeling that the "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor was immoral. I take the
>meta-view that the attack on Pearl Harbor was brilliantly carried-out
>military strategy, just as the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut was
>brilliantly carried-out military strategy.

ok, an interesting analogy. notice however why the japanese attacked however.
their critical oil supplies were being cut off. it wasn't just an exercise
in trying to destroy an enemy. we became their enemy for particular 
reasons.

>You really need read up on the "strategy of tension," esp. the writings of
>Stefano Dellechiai (sp?) and the Russian "anarchists" of the late 19th
>century. Also, the role the CIA played in funding former German commando
>Otto Skorzeny in setting up "terrorist" groups in the 1950s and 60s.

terrorists would not be terrorists unless they had their reasons. take
away their reasons for being terrorists and they have nothing to inflame
themselves about. that's my point.

>Basically, one of the things terrorists want to do is to provoke a
>crackdown by the ruling authorities, making things so bad that a
>counterrevolution occurs.

bzzzzt. you constantly talk about terrorists as if they are one single
kind of breed in the world. but they have a zillion different variations
and they are all violent for different reasons. they are fighting for
*causes*. the sole cause of a terrorist is not to destroy government.
they *want* to destroy government for some other reason. "I'm pissed off
about [x], therefore I'm going to destroy the government". now, they
*say* they are dedicated to destroying governments, but they're really
just pissed off about [x], and if you take away [x] (which the government
does often have a hand in) they have very little reason to be terrorists
any more.  ( McVeigh is a good case in point.)

there are terrorists who are explicitly dedicated to destroying government
merely because it is government, but I'd say this is an extreme form
of terrorism that is relatively rare. apparently you have studied these
forms the most and concluded they are the regular variety, and I take
exception to this.

 you will not find terrorism in societies that are largely
"contented". you cannot realize this until you study societies that are
"content", which is the opposite of what you have done, focus on societies
that are "discontented" and stuck in turmoil.

I think this is what I find remarkable about your writing. for terrorists,
destroying the government is a means to an end. but you often write
as if terrorism is the end itself, that terrorism is its own reason
for existence. that's what I'm questioning.

 They believe they will reap the rewards of such a
>counterevolution (or revolution, as it need not be "counter").

note that they are really interested in the rewards, not necessarily
the revolution. what would happen if they could obtain the rewards
without the revolution? frequently revolution is required because
the government is fanatically opposed to giving them their demands.
but their demands are rarely that extreme at the root. (a place to
live, religious tolerance, sovereignty, whatever). 

when you have terrorists, 
what you have is a government that is as extreme in its attitudes as
the terrorists. it takes two to tango, as you are suggesting. the
violent confrontation between government and terrorism is only
the result of a negative feedback loop in which both become more
extreme and polarized, each feeling that any concession to the other
is a sign of submission. it is *not* a natural course of civilized
society as you frequently suggest.

>My main point in my essay was that violence and authoritarianism are all
>around us, and that responding to the attacking of "soft targets" by
>cracking down on basic liberties is NOT something we should endorse.

well, we're in agreement, although at times it sounds like you are
rooting for the violent crackdown, the negative feedback loop. your
writing is very opaque sometimes. its not clear what you are 
advocating in particular. you seem to want to advocate things without
appearing to advocate them, eh?

>If you can't make your points reasonably and convincingly, I see that you
>once again make ad hominem arguments. Calling me "Timmy" is not terribly
>effective.

actually it was a term of endearment <g>. 
I would be awfully bored here without your postings. it's just a pity
that you don't ever consider reexamining your fundamental premises, or
stating them in depth.  but this is human nature, so I can't fault you 
for it.