"Being black means never having to apologize" ??

[linusrichard]

And BTW, the US is in Saudi Arabia because Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, and SA was next on his list as they didn't have proper military to defend themselves. So if OBL wants to blame someone, it should be Hussein.

He does. He's got a lot of blame to go around. Just because he blames us doesn't mean he doesn't also blame SA, Israel, Saddam Hussein, Jews, Christians, etc., etc., etc.

It must be our Judeo-Christian mentality, to think that everytime someone attacks us it must be our fault.

Cute, but no one here is doing that. So to you too.

 

[Pardalis]

Brainwashed more than likely, but sociopaths? I think that is a naive view.

I'm not a psychologist, but to do what they did, with no remorse and with such fanatical enthusiasm, I would say it's very likely.

The terrorists seem to be idealistic and motivated by what they feel are injustices and assaults against thier beliefs/country/people. They are simply responding in any way they can to a percieved threat. Now wether the threat is real or not is another argument.

Yes it is the argument, if the threat is not real then their ideological motivations are irrelevant.

There are a growing number of reports that suggest that terrorist is some countries are more affluent and educated than the rest of thier populace.

You can be educated and be a world class sociopath, I don't see the problem.

I am not trying to justify or appologise for thier action, But arent we just as guilty of being "brainwashed" and dehumanizing by calling the terrorists sociopaths and monsters? Because they most likely have been told that we are sociopaths and monsters by thier leadership.

I know you're not apologizing for them, but having no regard for human life is indicative of their mental state.

I think that we should defend ourselves, but we should also try to seek out the root cause and see if there is anything that can be done to settle or end the violence.

Again, by saying that you legitimize their claims. You're making them the victims when they are the ones killing by the thousands. You're playing their game.

No it's not. It's like saying the reason the Nazis tried to exterminate the Jews was because the Nazis believed that the Jews really tried to take over everything. Which, with respect to at least the rank-and-file Nazis, I think is probably true. (Historians, jump in.)

I respectfully disagree, you're not saying they think they are right, you're saying their arguments have merit.

So you would categorically believe the exact opposite of everything bin Laden ever says?

He's a sociopathic mass murderer, anything he says I disregard, and so should you.

If I want to know what's causing trouble in the Middle East, I got read a book from an expert author who is rational, and who hasn't innocent blood on his hands.

I believe bin Laden's statements about his motivations because I think he has more reason to tell the truth than to lie,

Are you serious? He's an ideologue, a dangerous one at that. He's a propagandist demagogue, on top of that. You want to give him the time of day, go ahead, I want to kill the son of a bitch.

Would you be saying the same things of Stalin or Hitler?

Note also that I don't believe bin Laden's gripes are necessarily true or legitimate. I only say that I believe they are sincerely held.

Who cares? I'm sure Ted Bundy sincerely wanted to bash these girls' heads in.

I think I agree. So does that mean there's something wrong with inquiring into his cultural background, or that doing so is a defense of Vick? Of course not.

Sure.

 

[jimtron]

Goldberg didn't mention race, and didn't defend Vick--maybe she was trying to humanize him a bit, but she didn't say that he did nothing wrong, and she didn't say he needn't apologize.

Any other examples? So far I've seen no evidence on this thread to back up Big Red's claim about blacks not needing to apologize. I still think it's a straw man.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Saying Al Qaeda attacked the US because of the US foreign policies is oversimplifyng things, and undully putting the blame on the US. That's why people see it as apologizing for them, which it is in a sense.

These guys are sociopaths. No matter how much you try to understand why they did what they did, or if you are foolish enough to believe the reasons they gave (you have fallen into their propaganda trap BTW), these are brainwashed sociopaths.

So they still had their motivations. They saw the west from inside the west for a long time, and believed that it was right to do what they did. Dismissing them as brainwashed sociopaths does not help understand and then try to resolve the reason they felt that they should do it.

 

[Lonewulf]

Who cares about understanding your enemy? Didn't Sun Tzu say something about striking blindly whenever you could, without knowing your foe?

 

[Pardalis]

So they still had their motivations. They saw the west from inside the west for a long time, and believed that it was right to do what they did. Dismissing them as brainwashed sociopaths does not help understand and then try to resolve the reason they felt that they should do it.

Sure, I understand your position, it is indeed good to know why people do things. But what I dislike about this way of thinking is that it assumes the terrorists are right and have a good reason to do what they do, and that we must comply and change ourselves accordingly.

This is absolutely unacceptable, IMO.

We have gone too far and acquired our freedoms and liberties at too great a price to give these fascists any ground.

 

[linusrichard]

I respectfully disagree, you're not saying they think they are right, you're saying their arguments have merit.

No.

He's a sociopathic mass murderer, anything he says I disregard, and so should you.

If I want to know what's causing trouble in the Middle East, I got read a book from an expert author who is rational, and who hasn't innocent blood on his hands.

Are you serious? He's an ideologue, a dangerous one at that. He's a propagandist demagogue, on top of that. You want to give him the time of day, go ahead, I want to kill the son of a bitch.

Did I say I didn't want to kill him?

Would you be saying the same things of Stalin or Hitler?

Sure. I think there are people who spend a lot of time thinking about what motivated Stalin and Hitler. I'm not saying you have to. I'm just saying there's nothing wrong with it if that's what you want to do, and I'm saying that it doesn't constitute any part of a defense of Stalin or Hitler or bin Laden or Vick.

Who cares? I'm sure Ted Bundy sincerely wanted to bash these girls' heads in.

Who cares? Obviously you don't. But why do you care so much that there are other people who do care?

Who cares about understanding your enemy? Didn't Sun Tzu say something about striking blindly whenever you could, without knowing your foe?

Perfect.

 

[linusrichard]

Sure, I understand your position, it is indeed good to know why people do things. But what I dislike about this way of thinking is that it assumes the terrorists are right and have a good reason to do what they do, and that we must comply and change ourselves accordingly.

For the umpteenth time, no it doesn't, and I can't figure out why you think it does.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Sure, I understand your position, it is indeed good to know why people do things. But what I dislike about this way of thinking is that it assumes the terrorists are right and have a good reason to do what they do, and that we must comply and change ourselves accordingly.

Look at it this way. You know Bob, people assault Bob all the the time. This is because Bob is a obnoxious Jerk. Now you understand that if Bob was less of a jerk people wouldn't assault him so often right? But does that excuse their behavior?

There is a difference between saying someone was right to do what they did, and that they did not have some valid motivations for what they did.

 

[quarky]

Hold on.

Didn't we just kill a crap load more people than the terrorists killed?
Because they started it?

Who cares about the why of it.
We kill people. Its what we do.
Its always buffered with righteousness.

Why can't we accept our murderous tendancies without getting all moral about it?

 

[Ausmerican]

Look at it this way. You know Bob, people assault Bob all the the time. This is because Bob is a obnoxious Jerk. Now you understand that if Bob was less of a jerk people wouldn't assault him so often right? But does that excuse their behavior?

There is a difference between saying someone was right to do what they did, and that they did not have some valid motivations for what they did.

I think you could leave the word valid out of that last sentence. Motivation is motivation wether valid or not.

 

[Ausmerican]

For the umpteenth time, no it doesn't, and I can't figure out why you think it does.

Because as your wonderful earlier post stated, to some people trying to understand the motivations of these people, ie: seeing them as human, is defending them. Pardalis is proving that post true. He is also the one excusing their actions by ascribing all sorts of mental disorders to them.
A sociopath cannot help being a sociopath and can't feel empathy for his victims. It is not that they choose not to, they can't.
I would not give the people under discussion here that excuse.

 

[Sefarst]

Look at it this way. You know Bob, people assault Bob all the the time. This is because Bob is a obnoxious Jerk. Now you understand that if Bob was less of a jerk people wouldn't assault him so often right? But does that excuse their behavior?

Implicit in this scenario, however, is the fact that Bob could (or maybe even should) stop being an obnoxious jerk in order to get people to stop assaulting him. In a way, it puts responsibility on Bob, at least partially, for being attacked.

When people start talking about why terrorists attack us, they walk a fine line between being descriptive and prescriptive. When you say terrorists attack us because of our policies in the Middle East people start to hear it as a suggestion that we should change our policies. At that point, people start to interpret that as you advocating that we simply do what the terrorists want. That elicits an emotional response.

There is a difference between saying someone was right to do what they did, and that they did not have some valid motivations for what they did.

To some people, saying "valid" sounds like you mean "right".

 

[Lonewulf]

Well, in some ways it should be prescriptive; there's just been too often where we train and arm people from other countries to suit one objective, without thinking that they might turn that training and weaponry on other people; the cold war was rife with this. It certainly tells me that we should exercise more caution.

In other ways, no, it shouldn't be prescriptive.

 

[EGarrett]

While true it does not invalidate the point that there is a black culture in the US. Look at the attempts to change the misoginist view of women in the music as an example of one part of the black comunity trying to change a different one.

That's the hip-hop community. A lot of the black population is in the hip-hop community, and a lot of people in the "hip-hop population" are black, but not ALL either way. In fact, I might even go so far as to say that the hip-hop community is a minority of the black population (black adults tend to hate it, and black children are usually too young to understand it), and black people make up the minority of hip-hop fans (most rap album sales are to suburban white youth).

I always have a hard time getting this idea across...but if you're not criticizing black people, it's misleading to use the term "black" or reference black people. There are white people who wear baggie pants and curse women and all that also (such as Eminem)...are they exempt from charges of misogyny? Of course not. So leave "black" out of it and just say the hip-hop community. Using black drags in a whole lot of people, purposefully or by implication, who don't agree with those ideas. Thus, it's pigeonholing, insulting to people that the speak doesn't intend to insult, and makes the speaker sound ignorant.

(the same is absolutely true of those who say "white people think THIS," or "white people don't care about the poor" and so on. I'm just using black people vs. hip-hop because it is the example at hand)

It is not a remarkable claim to me that the way american black culture defines manhood, that someone invested in that culture would have problems admitting mistakes.

Again, *I* don't define manhood that way. And I am an American black person. So please leave me out of it. Dealing with racism in this country is a very raw nerve, so I can't tell you how irritating small things like this can be.

 

[Richard Masters]

For the umpteenth time, no it doesn't, and I can't figure out why you think it does.

Neither can I.

 

[tyr_13]

That's the hip-hop community. A lot of the black population is in the hip-hop community, and a lot of people in the "hip-hop population" are black, but not ALL either way. In fact, I might even go so far as to say that the hip-hop community is a minority of the black population (black adults tend to hate it, and black children are usually too young to understand it), and black people make up the minority of hip-hop fans (most rap album sales are to suburban white youth).

I always have a hard time getting this idea across...but if you're not criticizing black people, it's misleading to use the term "black" or reference black people. There are white people who wear baggie pants and curse women and all that also (such as Eminem)...are they exempt from charges of misogyny? Of course not. So leave "black" out of it and just say the hip-hop community. Using black drags in a whole lot of people, purposefully or by implication, who don't agree with those ideas. Thus, it's pigeonholing, insulting to people that the speak doesn't intend to insult, and makes the speaker sound ignorant.

(the same is absolutely true of those who say "white people think THIS," or "white people don't care about the poor" and so on. I'm just using black people vs. hip-hop because it is the example at hand)

Again, *I* don't define manhood that way. And I am an American black person. So please leave me out of it. Dealing with racism in this country is a very raw nerve, so I can't tell you how irritating small things like this can be.

Seconded. This sort of racial grouping bothers me too, no matter if it is coming from white people or black people. Especially when it comes from the 'black community'. Umm, aren't black people part of their local community, or community of whatever activity they enjoy? (Hip-hop, D&D, Chicago, Wales, whatever.) Then comes the inevitable claims that any black person who doesn't identify as part of the 'black community' or act 'black' enough is a sell out or some such idiocy.

 

[Richard Masters]

Yes it is the argument, if the threat is not real then their ideological motivations are irrelevant.

It depends. Do you want to figure out how to solve the problem? (By addressing a misunderstanding) Or do you simply want to initiate a confrontation because you've decided they are wrong?

If your finger gets jammed in a car door, do you start kicking the tire and keying the car with your free hand, or do you try to open the door?

Do you kill a police officer because you weren't speeding (you weren't a real threat) or do you contest the ticket in court?

Yes it is the argument, if the threat is not real then their ideological motivations are irrelevant.

That's a partial appeal to ignorance. I think a new dog-latin frase is in order (In Vick's honor).

It's also an argumentum contra ex-secta* informal fallacy, or sociopathic fallacy**. To summarize: "You are not me and your culture is messed up, so your reasons are not valid or worth examining."***

*Adapted with permission from Richard Masters.
**Ibid.
***Ibid.

 

[Sefarst]

It depends. Do you want to figure out how to solve the problem? (By addressing a misunderstanding) Or do you simply want to initiate a confrontation because you've decided they are wrong?

But you're all ready starting to get into what I was talking about earlier with prescriptive versus descriptive. And we didn't decide that they were wrong, they decided that WE were wrong and ititiated attacks on us.

If your finger gets jammed in a car door, do you start kicking the tire and keying the car with your free hand, or do you try to open the door?

Bad example. If you jam your finger in the car door, it's entirely your own fault. In the case of terrorism, however, you're going to get a lot of jeers and anger from people to suggest that it's people's own faults for getting attacked by terrorists.

Do you kill a police officer because you weren't speeding (you weren't a real threat) or do you contest the ticket in court?

This is actually an example for the other side. It's the terrorists who are trying to kill US over a "speeding ticket" rather than working it out through nonviolent means like the court system. In the case of your police officer, if someone shoots at him, he's going to shoot back regardless of whether or not the speeding ticket he gave was correct.

The "speeding ticket" the US has given the Middle East exists in the form of installing military bases in Saudi Arabia, support for Israel, etc. Whether or not we were right or wrong to do those things, the terrorists have decided to try to work the matter out violently. We have responded in kind.

 

[uruk]

I'm not a psychologist, but to do what they did, with no remorse and with such fanatical enthusiasm, I would say it's very likely.

If they believe so fully in the rhetoric they are brainwashed with I doubt they would feel remorse especially if they feel the killing was justified.

How many soldiers in war feel remorse for the people they've killed? I am certain that there are some who do. I've talked to a few. And there are some who feel totaly justified in the killings and feel no remorse for the lives lost. They say they were doing thier duty and defending thier country. They do not, on the outward appearance, to seem to be sociopathic. Just patriotic, which is a form of fanatical enthusiasm.

Yes it is the argument, if the threat is not real then their ideological motivations are irrelevant.

The important thing here is if the threat appears real in thier mind.
The US public was suckered into a war with Iraq based on the percieved threat of WMDs and Terrorist training camps. Did it seem to matter that the WMDs and camps were never found?

Ideology is what drives many people to do things. Revolutionary and Civil wars were fought on ideology. A war based on religeous difference is a war based on ideology.

You can be educated and be a world class sociopath, I don't see the problem.

True, But it indicates something when an educated person is driven by rhetoric to perfom a terroristic act.

I know you're not apologizing for them, but having no regard for human life is indicative of their mental state.

You are making a assumption that the individual terrorist has no regard or regret for the lives they take. It may not simply be a matter of having no regard for human life. It could be they feel they have a duty to defend against a percieved threat.

A soldier in a war may feel regret for killing an enemy, but he still does so because he feels he has an obligation to defend something he hold to be supremely important.

Again, by saying that you legitimize their claims. You're making them the victims when they are the ones killing by the thousands. You're playing their game.

I am not legitimizing thier claims. Everybody has a reason for doing what they do.

You are making a gross generalization that all terrorist are inhuman and insane. They may not be. The could be totaly sane but acting upon a percieved threat or for some other reason.

I read an interview with a failed suicide bomer. She chose to do the bombing because she was a widow. In her culture the widow has no social status and her children were suffering because of it. She chose to become a suicide bomber because the act would give her martyr status and her children would no longer have the stigma.

Here is an article concerning the reason some women become suicide bombers.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1213_041213_tv_suicide_bombers.html

To say that all terrorists are insane and inhuman and sociopaths is a bit comic bookish. The reasons are varied and complex.