Battlezone Forums

The Larger View
An essay on peacefulness

Never give a terrorist what he wants is a popular mantra in popular times. And it makes sense in a way. If you give a terrorist what he demands, you are thereby encouraging other terrorist factions to attack your fellow people in order so that they too can get what they want.

Maybe a terrorist faction simply wants freedom for their people against an iron-fisted regime, or maybe they just have an irrational hatred for those who do not follow their beliefs. At any rate, terrorism is something to be looked down upon. It is, after all, an action whereby one seeks domination over another by causing harm and distress to them. To give in means to invite terrorist attacks by anyone who wants something, even of little value. It is understandable too, that people would want to maintain their sense of personal power, to resist.

However, when we look at the larger view, you can see parallels to something everywhere. When a baby cries, it causes distress to its mother and bystanders. The baby cries not because it wants to dominate you, but because its the only way to have its needs met. At a power plant, workers may go on strike because they feel they are being exploited unfairly by the company they work for. Perhaps their actions do cause distress to others, but there is naught they can do except to go on strike or continue to be exploited as such. Certainly people who have to go through power shortages can hardly be blamed for being upset, and you can't blame the company for wanting to watch their bottom line and have enough income to continue to operate.

At any rate, there is a power struggle – and people must decide for themselves what is worth believing in and sticking by. Certainly a care giver could stop feeding the baby, and maybe gain a sense of personal power, however this will not change the fact that the baby will continue to cry; or the company could ignore the strikers and hire new employees who are willing to work for peanuts; but in the end this leaves us with a lot of dissatisfied people.

It does not change the fact that there are certain things which should be done, for the good of all.

Even normally rational people can be driven to do something irrational if the situation demands it. The best course of action is using judgement to take into account the larger view. Perhaps I will give the baby what it wants, knowing that I do so because if it has what it needs there is no reason for it to cry. This doesnt mean that i'm going to give in to the baby every time it wants a piece of candy, and it doesnt mean that the union workers are going to get exactly what they want. But it allows me to make a choice that I am comfortable sticking by.

Don't lose objectivity and sight of the larger picture or you risk allowing conflict to become perpetual and ever lasting.

you thought of all of that in the SHOWER lol
thats nice to know

i say nukem.

blue banana wrote:you thought of all of that in the SHOWER lol
thats nice to know

The greatest philosophers in the world did an awful lot of there philosophising in one of three places: the shower, bed, or the toilet.

(well, on the toilet rather than in it).

*Thumbs up*
It's pretty dumb to give into terrorists unless you plan to hit back soon. And hard.

Lionsword7 wrote:*Thumbs up*
It's pretty dumb to give into terrorists unless you plan to hit back soon. And hard.

Indeed. It's also pretty dumb to fail to realize that while their means are messed up that there has to be something causing the problem in the first place. Look at the WTC attacks -- there was maybe 2500 casualties and while this is no small number it's only a fraction of a percent of the population. The wars waged as a result of this have actually inflicted more casualties and yet have had no solution to them except for land/property gained. The USA could become a 'big brother' state through homeland security with surveillance on everything but really it will not stop terrorism it will just hasten the USA's demise as 'the land of the free' (which is ironic since 'fighting for freedom' was actually one of the catchphrases of those who support TWAT). In that sense, the cure is actually worse than the disease itself because it warrants a fundamental restructuring of that society to accommodate for something that could never be fully eliminated. It is the fact that perhaps terrorism is a fundamental nature of the human condition and not necessarily something you can target and eliminate surgically without attacking things which are unrelated to terrorism.

The solution to the WTC attacks was the correct one. Attacking their homeland hard keeps the fighting on their soil. It makes sense on a lot of levels. As you said they aren't going to stop killing and terrorizing. They want to fight, maybe forever. They'll fight their own people, or whoever. When they stretched out to attack us for no good reason they involved us in their fight. Bush kept the fight on their soil, which I admire him for that. Yes more people from America have died in the war on terror than on the WTC attacks. But the message is clear. If you attack our homeland, we'll come for you in a big way. Maybe even change your government to Democratic if you anger us enough.

Axeminister wrote:The solution to the WTC attacks was the correct one. Attacking their homeland hard keeps the fighting on their soil. It makes sense on a lot of levels. As you said they aren't going to stop killing and terrorizing. They want to fight, maybe forever. They'll fight their own people, or whoever. When they stretched out to attack us for no good reason they involved us in their fight. Bush kept the fight on their soil, which I admire him for that. Yes more people from America have died in the war on terror than on the WTC attacks. But the message is clear. If you attack our homeland, we'll come for you in a big way. Maybe even change your government to Democratic if you anger us enough.

... at which point they'll elect whackjobs who want to attack us.

In the long run, less blood and treasure are wasted by simply leaving them alone and letting them get all jihadey at somebody else. Attacking them just gives them validation and motivation.

The sad fact is that a quite significant proportion of humanity is not actually very intelligent or rational, terrorism occurs in many places by many different creeds of people, Its not just having a loony religion that preaches hate, or a historic political grudge of some sort. Damaged, hate filled, irrational people are also required to commit these crimes. The war on terror is a perfect way to ensure a constant supply of such people. There are many other ways too. The solutions to it are cultural and societal and must start with an end to armed conflict within that society. It should also include a rational discourse to counter their "cause" whatever it may be.
The "war on terror" is an idiocy that can only fail to achieve its goals and practically no effort at all has been spent on countering the manipulative untruths commonly known as Religion.

i still say we nukem.

Genocide WOULD put a stop to it.

Yes but then we'd never hear the end of it from the hippies.

Well.....nuke them too.

Do you have any idea how bad burning hippies smell?

oh no

it's turning into timedisruptor in here