Terror attack in Paris


Ironhold
 Share

Recommended Posts

Perhaps. Can you give an example of irrational actions on the part of terrorists or others?

 

I'm not sure there's going to be much value in getting into a semantic debate. I will acquiesce that their actions will well be deemed rational by them. In my book, that doesn't make them rational.

 

It is, rather, a common idea (and more common all the time) that emotion = rational. What we feel makes darned good sense, right? -- because, you know...feelings.

 

But feelings aren't reason. Reason is reason. And "rational", by definition (per Merriam-Webster, at lease) is: 

 

: based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings

 

In my book that means any acts of war or otherwise that are based on vengeance, hate, pride, etc., are irrational.

 

Sure, one can claim that their actions are rational by virtue of all sorts of things that make them feel justified. I don't think that truly qualifies said actions as rational though.

 

Perhaps the confusion I have is in the strict idea of true rationality vs perceived rationality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoting yjacket

 

"There are very, very rational reasons why they do the things they do."

 

You confuse ration with dementia, insanity, psychosis, anti social acts with dysfunctional results.

dc

It actually not a very hard thing to figure out; people just don't like the answer.  

Why France? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Support_for_the_Syrian_opposition

 

France was involved in the Syrian conflict for the past two years.  If, just if Mexico was one of the world military powers and they were supplying rebels inside the US to overthrow the US government-what do you think some people would do?

 

In my book that means any acts of war or otherwise that are based on vengeance, hate, pride, etc., are irrational.

 

Then you really don't understand how humans act. Most of the evils committed in this world are based on those emotions. It doesn't make those actions right or justified. But hate, pride, etc. are not irrational feelings and acts committed based on those feelings are not irrational-they are wrong and must be punished but they aren't irrational.

 

The people over in the Middle East have been bombed for at least the last 15 years.  People aren't stupid, they saw what happened in Iraq, they saw what happened in Afghanistan and they see the same thing happening in Syria. They don't have all the facts about why, all they know is they have been stomped on for decades. The US coalition has committed numerous atrocities, it has bombed many, many actual weddings and funerals, it has bombed hospitals, it has rained death from above using drones. Whether these actions were justified or not-the point is that from the Middle Eastern perspective it is not.

 

When the chips are really down, what do people fall back on? In the really hard times in life-most people fall back on God (there are no atheists in foxholes). Their God might not be the same God as mine-but they fall back on religion. Religion mixed with base emotions such as pride, hate, etc. is not a good combination.

 

The acts they commit are evil, but they are not irrational.

 

I knew someone who was over in Damascus when 9/11 happened and was riding in a Taxi. The driver said something to the effect of "I feel sorry for your people-but you deserved it." If you want to know why people say we deserved it, you've got to look at actions and think about why would they say something like that.

 

I do not believe the common taxi driver in Damascus to be irrational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It actually not a very hard thing to figure out; people just don't like the answer.  

Why France? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Support_for_the_Syrian_opposition

 

France was involved in the Syrian conflict for the past two years.  If, just if Mexico was one of the world military powers and they were supplying rebels inside the US to overthrow the US government-what do you think some people would do?

 

 

Then you really don't understand how humans act. Most of the evils committed in this world are based on those emotions. It doesn't make those actions right or justified. But hate, pride, etc. are not irrational feelings and acts committed based on those feelings are not irrational-they are wrong and must be punished but they aren't irrational.

 

The people over in the Middle East have been bombed for at least the last 15 years.  People aren't stupid, they saw what happened in Iraq, they saw what happened in Afghanistan and they see the same thing happening in Syria. They don't have all the facts about why, all they know is they have been stomped on for decades. The US coalition has committed numerous atrocities, it has bombed many, many actual weddings and funerals, it has bombed hospitals, it has rained death from above using drones. Whether these actions were justified or not-the point is that from the Middle Eastern perspective it is not.

 

When the chips are really down, what do people fall back on? In the really hard times in life-most people fall back on God (there are no atheists in foxholes). Their God might not be the same God as mine-but they fall back on religion. Religion mixed with base emotions such as pride, hate, etc. is not a good combination.

 

The acts they commit are evil, but they are not irrational.

 

I knew someone who was over in Damascus when 9/11 happened and was riding in a Taxi. The driver said something to the effect of "I feel sorry for your people-but you deserved it." If you want to know why people say we deserved it, you've got to look at actions and think about why would they say something like that.

 

I do not believe the common taxi driver in Damascus to be irrational.

 

No.

Emotion does not equal rationality.

dc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hate, pride, etc. are not irrational feelings and acts committed based on those feelings are not irrational

 

and yet:

 

Rational : based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings

 

Is it just me or is this a dumb thing to be debating? This will be my final post on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These attacks make sense to a madman.

The attacks make sense to the madmen that perpetrate them. 

But they are not rational or logical to a sane person.

The attackers are not "legally insane" in a criminal law sense.

They are still responsibile for their actions, and full well understand that their actions are against our laws. They just don't subscribe to our laws. 

dc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These attacks make sense to a madman.

The attacks make sense to the madmen that perpetrate them. 

But they are not rational or logical to a sane person.

The attackers are not "legally insane" in a criminal law sense.

They are still responsibile for their actions, and full well understand that their actions are against our laws. They just don't subscribe to our laws. 

dc

 

 

 

These attacks are logical. Terrorism is not what you think it is. These people have declared war on the west but simply don't have the means to wage it effectively.

 

If you provided tanks, jets, drones and nuclear weapons, I promise you they would not be using suicide bombers any more.

 

There are reasons for why groups like ISIS hate the west, but I will illustrate this in a historical context.

 

In ancient Rome, their civilization was borne on the backs of the military. Early Rome had citizens passionate about expanding the power of Rome and believed very firmly in the superiority of Rome.

 

Later, Romans became lax about their support of Rome. Nobody wanted to fight in the army any more, so Rome used its considerable wealth to hire mercenaries to fight and die on their behalf. Those mercenaries eventually saw fit to loot Rome.

 

 

Draw that analogy to the US. The US became Empire on the back of its workers. The West(And the US in particular) did not win World War 2 because its soldiers were braver or better trained or its equipment was superior in technology. The US simply outproduced them. Due to greed and a simple unwillingness to do certain jobs, much of the US's production capabilities have been stripped bare. This is compounded with the US's simple weariness and the reduction in nationalism in the US.

 

Like Rome, many of the US citizens do not see the US as a beacon of civilization and morality and so the sacrifice that was expected in the past is simply not coming now.

 

Instead, the US has turned its production(Its source of power, similar to the Roman's military) to external sources.

 

We are not more enlightened than the Romans were even if we'd like to think so. And the terrorists are just Huns and Visigoths doing exactly what those Huns and Visigoths do.

 

Do they have reasons for what they do? Sure. So did the Huns. That doesn't make much difference to the average Western citizen just like it didn't make much difference to the average Roman citizen.

 

Because of this, there are only three basic things you can do:

 

1) We can do what the Romans did and ignore it. Some day, maybe in a single night of a massive terrorist strike or maybe over generations of decline, we fall and the next Empire takes its place.

 

2) We can decide enough is enough and become brutal like Russia. Vladimir Putin dealt with Chechnya using overwhelming violence and civil rights violations. While this would stop the Terrorists, it would destroy everything the West has stood for. Civil liberties and rights would be destroyed, but the Terrorists wouldn't win. Tyranny would. This would either be by stripping all citizens of rights and privacies or simple draconian enforcement.

 

 

3) We can become Isolationists. Overnight, things we take for granted would no longer be affordable. The world economy would crash with all the pain and universal heartache that would cause.

 

 

That's it - Those are our choices: Do nothing, become tyrants or remove ourselves from the game entirely. Terrorists do not have a central command. They do not have supply lines. There is no way to know if you've won the war on terror because there is no one to sign the peace treaty. They hide in groups of innocents.

The scary thing is: We are utterly impotent at stopping a terrorist strike. If someone wants to kill a bunch of people, they will. Draconian gun laws didn't save Paris from the shootings. Americans with lax gun laws didn't stop the Oklahoma City bombings or the various mass shootings that have occurred, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These attacks are logical. Terrorism is not what you think it is. These people have declared war on the west but simply don't have the means to wage it effectively.

Ted Bundy's use of an arm sling to lure women into helping him was also logical. That doesn't render his motivations rational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Motivations:

 

Bin Laden looked across the Islamic world, and saw Muslims groaning under secular governments or corrupt religious ones, beholden to or manipulated by the satanic west.  'This is no way for Muslims to live', he thought to himself.  He thought about the caliphate and how to bring it about.  He thought the west (mainly America) held a prominence it didn't deserve in Islamic minds, and by changing things he could (insha'Allah) get the Islamic people to rise up and overthrow their stupid governments and bring about the caliphate. 

 

His totally rational, reasonable, non-emotional plan:

1. Attack America in a meaningful way to show it can be done.

2. This would provoke an anemic, ineffective response from America, showing it was a paper tiger and not as strong as Islamic folks assumed.  After all, what could the west do?  Bomb rocks in Afghanistan?  Invade Iraq for no good reason?

3. Call out to all muslims everywhere to take up arms and make things right.

4. With a new understanding of the weakness of the west, Islam would rise up, shake off their shackles of west-backed secular corrupt government oppression, and bring about the caliphate. 

 

Now, we killed Bin Laden before this ISIS stuff started making global news.  He saw it's roots though, although there's no good way to tell if this is the sort of proto-caliphate action he'd approve of or not.  Islamic history is full of people trying to establish the caliphate, and fighting each other over what the caliphate should look like, or how it should be run.  Sometimes rival caliphates battled each other.  Anyway, from where I'm standing, ISIS' goals of establishing the caliphate through the sword are as reasonable and rational as LDS goals of bringing about the Kingdom of the Lord through missionary effort.  

 

They need to be stopped, of course.  This is war, of course.  But, as yjacket pointed out earlier (and I actually agree for once), do we really have to demonize them, call their perspective irrational, in order to do so?

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think their motivations are?

 

I'm not sure that defining this specifically (if we even could) is useful.

 

Let's continue with the Ted Bundy analogy. Let's say, for the sake of the discussion, that he truly believed that by murdering women he was going to be given a thousand virgins in the afterlife. Does that render the murders rational?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3) We can become Isolationists. Overnight, things we take for granted would no longer be affordable. The world economy would crash with all the pain and universal heartache that would cause.

 

I agree with most of what you have said, very good points.  I do not think this is the case. We become non-interventionist-let them sort out their own mess.  Bring all the troops home, close the bases, completely 100% pull out of the region. Tell the Middle East and Europe-take care of your own problem on your doorstep. We will no longer subsidize your defense, we aren't going to fight your wars, nor pay trillions of dollars for them.

 

In fact, a candidate (while not my guy, still has good points) has made the case to let Russia solve it.  Really, what is so bad about Russia worrying about what is happening in their backdoor-rather than us trying to solve it half a world away.

 

The next thing is you don't let anyone into the country from those regions-No Syrians, Iraqis, etc. We won't bother you, but we aren't going to let you bother us.

 

Finally, you still trade with people.  The world economy wouldn't tank. The producers are countries like China, Singapore, Thialand, Europe, etc. In fact, most countries in the world are non-interventionist for example, Switzerland. Yet no one calls Switzerland isolationist.

 

You still trade and do business with the world, you just restrict your military and influx of people. It's not isolationist-its common sense. 

Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what you have said, very good points.  I do not think this is the case. We become non-interventionist-let them sort out their own mess.  Bring all the troops home, close the bases, completely 100% pull out of the region. Tell the Middle East and Europe-take care of your own problem on your doorstep. We will no longer subsidize your defense, we aren't going to fight your wars, nor pay trillions of dollars for them.

 

In fact, Trump (while not my guy, still has good points) has made the case to let Russia solve it.  Really, what is so bad about Russia worrying about what is happening in their backdoor-rather than us trying to solve it half a world away.

 

The next thing is you don't let anyone into the country from those regions-No Syrians, Iraqis, etc. We won't bother you, but we aren't going to let you bother us.

 

Finally, you still trade with people.  The world economy wouldn't tank. The producers are countries like China, Singapore, Thialand, Europe, etc. In fact, most countries in the world are non-interventionist for example, Switzerland. Yet no one calls Switzerland isolationist.

 

You still trade and do business with the world, you just restrict your military and influx of people. It's not isolationist-its common sense. 

 

The opposing thought to this is that it is easier for America to have a Middle East that is allied with America than it is to leave the anti-American factions of the Middle East to eliminate American allies thereby giving them the power to bring the war to America.

 

Nobody, as of yet, have a strong desire to rule Switzerland.

 

P.S.  I think we're not supposed to mention political candidates in an election cycle... right?

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what you have said, very good points.  I do not think this is the case. We become non-interventionist-let them sort out their own mess.  Bring all the troops home, close the bases, completely 100% pull out of the region. Tell the Middle East and Europe-take care of your own problem on your doorstep. We will no longer subsidize your defense, we aren't going to fight your wars, nor pay trillions of dollars for them.

 

In fact, Trump (while not my guy, still has good points) has made the case to let Russia solve it.  Really, what is so bad about Russia worrying about what is happening in their backdoor-rather than us trying to solve it half a world away.

 

The next thing is you don't let anyone into the country from those regions-No Syrians, Iraqis, etc. We won't bother you, but we aren't going to let you bother us.

 

Finally, you still trade with people.  The world economy wouldn't tank. The producers are countries like China, Singapore, Thialand, Europe, etc. In fact, most countries in the world are non-interventionist for example, Switzerland. Yet no one calls Switzerland isolationist.

 

You still trade and do business with the world, you just restrict your military and influx of people. It's not isolationist-its common sense. 

 

 

That wouldn't help. There would still be terrorist attacks. Baali, for instance, had a horrible attack and nobody has ever said, "Boy, Baali really needs to stop its Empire

 

I'm not sure that defining this specifically (if we even could) is useful.

 

Let's continue with the Ted Bundy analogy. Let's say, for the sake of the discussion, that he truly believed that by murdering women he was going to be given a thousand virgins in the afterlife. Does that render the murders rational?

 

 

You certainly could define it. Yjacket made some good points.

 

How do you intend to fight an enemy you don't understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I could.

 

 

By following the principles laid out in the Book of Mormon.

 

Right. Remember that the last Book of Mormon prophet died alone and on the run in the wilderness after all his countrymen were slaughtered.

 

And also remember what Brigham Young said when people said they were going to forego common sense and rely exclusively on the Priesthood. The whole talk is at:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/04/healing-the-sick?lang=eng

 

But I have highlighted the relevant part:

 

Latter-day Saints believe in applying the best available scientific knowledge and techniques. We use nutrition, exercise, and other practices to preserve health, and we enlist the help of healing practitioners, such as physicians and surgeons, to restore health.

The use of medical science is not at odds with our prayers of faith and our reliance on priesthood blessings. When a person requested a priesthood blessing, Brigham Young would ask, “Have you used any remedies?” To those who said no because “we wish the Elders to lay hands upon us, and we have faith that we shall be healed,” President Young replied: “That is very inconsistent according to my faith. If we are sick, and ask the Lord to heal us, and to do all for us that is necessary to be done, according to my understanding of the Gospel of salvation, I might as well ask the Lord to cause my wheat and corn to grow, without my plowing the ground and casting in the seed. It appears consistent to me to apply every remedy that comes within the range of my knowledge, and [then] to ask my Father in Heaven … to sanctify that application to the healing of my body.”1

 

Trust in God. Believe in Him, but don't forget to do your part. In this case, trying to have a vague understanding of the enemy you're fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. Remember that the last Book of Mormon prophet died alone and on the run in the wilderness after all his countrymen were slaughtered.

 

Boy. You are the king of fallacious logic today.

 

And also remember what Brigham Young said when people said they were going to forego common sense and rely exclusively on the Priesthood. The whole talk is at:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/04/healing-the-sick?lang=eng

 

But I have highlighted the relevant part:

 

Wait....which premise of mine are you basing this on? What is it you think I said?

 

I'm confused.

 

Which principles in the Book of Mormon do you think I'm cherry-picking, or rather, which principles are you cherry-picking and then throwing back at me by way of accusation?

 

Trust in God. Believe in Him, but don't forget to do your part. In this case, trying to have a vague understanding of the enemy you're fighting.

 

...so...am I to understand this is your cherry-picked accusation? You think that the soul principle in the Book of Mormon is "Trust in God" and there's nothing there about doing your part? Or do you only presume that's my take on the Book of Mormon's message?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There would still be terrorist attacks. 

There would be; just like there will still be murders no matter what you do.  Terrorism is a tactic-you can't win a war against a tactic.

The "War on Terror" is a meaningless phrase except that it means endless war.

 

However, by eliminating many of the very rational reasons that others have against the US would dramatically reduce the likelihood of an attack.

 

If I poke a stick at a hornets nest and rattle it a bit I shouldn't complain too loudly when a few hornets sting me. If the US stopped poking a stick at the Middle East, the hornets would be much less likely to sting the US.

 

The challenge is that most people don't realize how much stick-poking the US has really done in that region and it is heresy to say so (why you anti-American ingrate!!!)

Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize. Can you be more specific what you meant? I had assumed you meant you were just going to try to win by living righteously.

 

But I would like to know what was fallacious about that. Can you tell me which fallacy I used and why it was a fallacy?

 

Boy. You are the king of fallacious logic today.

 

 

Wait....which premise of mine are you basing this on? What is it you think I said?

 

I'm confused.

 

Which principles in the Book of Mormon do you think I'm cherry-picking, or rather, which principles are you cherry-picking and then throwing back at me by way of accusation?

 

 

...so...am I to understand this is your cherry-picked accusation? You think that the soul principle in the Book of Mormon is "Trust in God" and there's nothing there about doing your part? Or do you only presume that's my take on the Book of Mormon's message?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I would like to know what was fallacious about that. Can you tell me which fallacy I used and why it was a fallacy?

 

Sure. This specific fallacy was the following: Moroni ended up alone, therefore what the Book of Mormon teaches us about how to deal with our enemies is suspect.

 

At best one could say that therefore the way Moroni dealt with enemies is suspect, but even this clearly false and ridiculous as an idea. As to the Book of Mormon as a history, one person's experience dealing with an entire nation that has gone wicked has no bearing on the other examples and teachings in the Book of Mormon (Nephi, King Benjamin, Captain Moroni, Alma, the Ammonites, etc., etc., etc.), all written for our day, and all teaching us a myriad of principles and truths about how to handle these things -- the core of which is to preach the gospel, but including principles like defense of family, not being the aggressor, forgiveness, preparedness, prayer, sacrifice, and a whole host of other things.

 

Moroni ending up alone in the end of the Book has no bearing on these principles at all. None. Nada. Zip. An indication that it does is a major logical fallacy at play.

 

Can you be more specific what you meant? I had assumed you meant you were just going to try to win by living righteously.

 

Does the above cover it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share