Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 42

Thread: It's an Issue of Sanity

  1. #1
    Manningham's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Seoul, South Korea
    Posts
    346

    Default It's an Issue of Sanity

    I just wanted to start a thread to see what people thought about terrorists in regard to sanity. Today while eating lunch I had CSpan (2?) on and was watching Charles Schumer (D-NY) talk about his joint-proposition for anti-terrorist spending as opposed to Bill Lieberman's joint-proposition.

    Schumer made the point that under the opposing plan, people in Wyoming (or some similar high area-low population state) would receive around $35 per capita while New York would receive under $5 - he was making the point that higher population areas should receive more funding because of the higher probability of Terrorist attacks - Threat-based funding.

    Lieberman defended his proposition by countering that we don't know where the terrorists will strike next. He stated that terrorists are "insane" and "irrational" by nature, and that we can't guess where they'll try to hit us.

    Just a few minutes ago, I watched Gen. Myers (sp) on Jim Lehr's news hour say that the insurgency in Iraq is difficult to dismantle in part because the terrorists there are insane. Indeed, the argument is everywhere and I suppose its appealing to the urge for a simple answer.

    My question is, how, exactly, are terrorists insane? They're perfectly sane enough to know that they want to hurt a powerful entity, in this case the US, consider their options and find a plausible method of inflicting a powerful strike to that entity's infrastructure and more importantly its psychological stability.

    Their plans are effective, sometimes in their simplicity as in the many suicide bombers who die for their convictions, others in their complexity as in the coordination needed to pull off an attack like on 9/11.

    The bottom line is while their actions can be viewed as simply irrational or crazy by those wanting to manipulate the repercussions to their own ends, every attack has its causes. It does no good to call the terrorists crazy because this eliminates any chance for understanding their motivations and preventing the realization of some of their sadistic plans.

    Reasonable predictions can be made, despite Lieberman's apparent universal confusion - for instance, the terrorists would probably rather blow up a bomb in the middle of downtown New York City than the middle of Jethroe's Mobile Campsite in Wyoming.

  2. #2
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Long Island, NY, US
    Posts
    6,521

    Default

    First, Schumer is definitely right.

    About the insanity, of course they arent insane. I doubt most of the politicians and government officials who say these things actually think the terrorist are insane. Its just rhetoric and/or their own misunderstanding of the singinficance of the word insane. They just use that rhetoric to look anti-terrorist. It doesnt seem like a big deal to me.

  3. #3
    Aaron88's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NOWHERE, Canada
    Posts
    214

    Default

    Terrorists aren't going to go through the trouble of hijacking a couple tractors and crashing them into grain silos(sp.?) in the heartland of the U.S.

  4. #4

    Default

    I do agree with Schumer on the issue, FYI. Terrorists are probably looking for a spectacle, and big causualities tends to be a spectacle.

    As for insane, that I'm a little neutral on. On one hand, its probably political rhetoric. On the other hand, someone who commits suicide is considered insane, and a mass murderer can also be considered insane.


    - I'm not a pacifist, I'm a pansy.

  5. #5
    Manningham's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Seoul, South Korea
    Posts
    346

    Default

    I think it's more than likely that terrorists make use of truly insane individuals to achieve their ends, and one could certainly call some of the terrorist organizers insane in a serial killer kind of way. It seems to be a big mistake when people equate the irrationality or extremity of terrorism with the unpredictable behavior of, say, someone kept in a straight-jacket in federal prison (we don't have many asylums for these people anymore, thanks to Reagan. They live out their lives in often intolerable conditions in federal prison).

  6. #6
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Long Island, NY, US
    Posts
    6,521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBagelmeister
    I do agree with Schumer on the issue, FYI. Terrorists are probably looking for a spectacle, and big causualities tends to be a spectacle.

    As for insane, that I'm a little neutral on. On one hand, its probably political rhetoric. On the other hand, someone who commits suicide is considered insane, and a mass murderer can also be considered insane.
    Right well, most of them arent insane just stupid or to consumed by the cause. Some of them im sure are either recruited because of mental defects or i think i heard somewhere that they get retarded guys and make 'em suicide bomb. Can someone confirm that?

  7. #7
    Erik's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    15,653

    Default

    According to my psychiatrist terrorists are mentally sick (just like me, lol).
    I'm not sure what he ment exactly but I think he ment they have the same kind of disorder as psychopats.
    Anyways I think they have some sort of mental disorder.

    This doesn't qualify them as insane, however.
    They know exactly how to make the most casualties.

    If anybody sound insane it's Lieberman.
    I guess he thinks it was a pure coincident that the 9/11 planes hit the twin-towers and the pentagon, and not a barn and a chicken farm.

    Or is he?
    Could there be a reason why he prefers to spend money in low-density states in stead of high-area states?
    Aren't those low-density states "Republican" while the high-density states are "Liberal commie states"



  8. #8
    Manningham's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Seoul, South Korea
    Posts
    346

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik
    According to my psychiatrist terrorists are mentally sick (just like me, lol).
    I'm not sure what he ment exactly but I think he ment they have the same kind of disorder as psychopats.
    Anyways I think they have some sort of mental disorder.

    This doesn't qualify them as insane, however.
    They know exactly how to make the most casualties.

    If anybody sound insane it's Lieberman.
    I guess he thinks it was a pure coincident that the 9/11 planes hit the twin-towers and the pentagon, and not a barn and a chicken farm.

    Or is he?
    Could there be a reason why he prefers to spend money in low-density states in stead of high-area states?
    Aren't those low-density states "Republican" while the high-density states are "Liberal commie states"
    Yeah, to me there's no reason to do this aside from politcal maneuvering. I've thought Lieberman should stop being the wolf in sheep's clothing and hop the aisle divide for years

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron88
    Terrorists aren't going to go through the trouble of hijacking a couple tractors and crashing them into grain silos(sp.?) in the heartland of the U.S.
    Probably isn't as far fetched as we think. Striking fear into the heartland could have dire consequences. Also, if you think that there are only tractors and silos here then you are mistaken.

  10. #10
    Tom Paine's Avatar Mr Common Sense
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Silver Spring, Maryland (inside the Beltway)
    Posts
    33,698

    Default

    Well, what kind of target is there that compares with: New York, Washington DC, or any of those other major population centres on the coast?

    On the subject of insanity what is insanity? The terrorists are clearly unable or unwilling to empathise with their victims, and is that not a symptom of psychopathy? I don't know, but I'm sure someone would. And psychopaths are certainly not "sane" in terms of traditional sanity. They are, however, ratioal; that is, they can work out the best plan of attack, the best targets, the best weapons. Their rationality is warped in comparison with the norm and therefore must be insane by the standards of the norm, which is the benchmark of sanity.

  11. #11
    Manningham's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Seoul, South Korea
    Posts
    346

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meh_cd
    Probably isn't as far fetched as we think. Striking fear into the heartland could have dire consequences. Also, if you think that there are only tractors and silos here then you are mistaken.

    Agreed, an attack in the landlocked states could have terrible psychological consequences. I think the goal of the terrorists isn't so much causing massive damage as it is making a massive display - massive damage is a means to an end.

    That being said, there's no reason why we shouldn't recognize the great American port cities of New York, Los Angeles, Miami, etc as the primary targets. They have the greatest development in America in the smallest area, the states they're located in have the greatest population densities, and they are vulnerable as they're nestled right next to the ocean.

  12. #12
    Tom Paine's Avatar Mr Common Sense
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Silver Spring, Maryland (inside the Beltway)
    Posts
    33,698

    Default

    Dense population, vulnerable, highly public and famous; what terrorisat couldn't resist that sort of target? It is far more public, far more easy, far more terroristic as a target and as such is more at risk. Either every state needs equal per capita protection or the more dense the population, the more the protection.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NStarun
    I just wanted to start a thread to see what people thought about terrorists in regard to sanity. Today while eating lunch I had CSpan (2?) on and was watching Charles Schumer (D-NY) talk about his joint-proposition for anti-terrorist spending as opposed to Bill Lieberman's joint-proposition.

    Schumer made the point that under the opposing plan, people in Wyoming (or some similar high area-low population state) would receive around $35 per capita while New York would receive under $5 - he was making the point that higher population areas should receive more funding because of the higher probability of Terrorist attacks - Threat-based funding.

    Lieberman defended his proposition by countering that we don't know where the terrorists will strike next. He stated that terrorists are "insane" and "irrational" by nature, and that we can't guess where they'll try to hit us.

    Just a few minutes ago, I watched Gen. Myers (sp) on Jim Lehr's news hour say that the insurgency in Iraq is difficult to dismantle in part because the terrorists there are insane. Indeed, the argument is everywhere and I suppose its appealing to the urge for a simple answer.

    My question is, how, exactly, are terrorists insane? They're perfectly sane enough to know that they want to hurt a powerful entity, in this case the US, consider their options and find a plausible method of inflicting a powerful strike to that entity's infrastructure and more importantly its psychological stability.

    Their plans are effective, sometimes in their simplicity as in the many suicide bombers who die for their convictions, others in their complexity as in the coordination needed to pull off an attack like on 9/11.

    The bottom line is while their actions can be viewed as simply irrational or crazy by those wanting to manipulate the repercussions to their own ends, every attack has its causes. It does no good to call the terrorists crazy because this eliminates any chance for understanding their motivations and preventing the realization of some of their sadistic plans.

    Reasonable predictions can be made, despite Lieberman's apparent universal confusion - for instance, the terrorists would probably rather blow up a bomb in the middle of downtown New York City than the middle of Jethroe's Mobile Campsite in Wyoming.
    AGREED!

  14. #14
    Legio XX Valeria Victrix's Avatar Great Scott!
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,054

    Default

    I think this thread brings up a good point, and something that our nation has done in nearly every war we have ever fought, barring perhaps the Revolution. We consistently uderestimate our enemies, and ignore the tried and true rule of conflict, "know thy enemy." I would argue that we have never faced a conflict in which that idea is more important, and yet we seem to be totally ignoring it, instead preferring to slander them as insane, cowardly, and any other negative adjective that can possibly apply to them. We will lose this war if we don't change that ignorance. All it takes is putting yourself in the opposite position, but instead the American govt. and people accuse you of being a traitor if you do that.

    If you were a Middle Eastern citizen, and your life was ****-poor, mostly as a result of American policies that, throughout recent history have led to the life they lead. Now, we may say that is not our fault, and certainly we are partially right. But we have botched some Middle Eastern policies in the past, and ignoring that fact will do us no favors in the long run. But anyways, assume for a moment that you hated America so much that you wanted to fight it anywhere and everywhere you could. How would you go about doing that? Fighting it conventionally would lead to your death faster than you could even imagine it. So you must improvise. Few nations will take on America, but groups of people will, shrouded by secret organizations comprised of many nation's citizens. It's safe to assume that many of the terrorists assume that they will die in the struggle, and many in fact wish to do so, but they don't want to die for no purpose fighting a conventional war that will only give America more power. They want their own deaths to advance their ends to some extent, however small. So to make the most of their deaths, they strap bombs to themselves, kill many enemy civilians or soldiers, and instill fear in the survivors. That's how they try to win. Their deaths and the lives they take, while tragic, are just the means to an end. The fear they instill is their real weapon, not the bombs they strap to themselves. The more hysterical our society and media and politicians become, the more Patriot Acts, the more color-coded warning levels we create as a result of that fear, the more we let them win. The more sovereign nations, like Iraq, that we invade to further our War on Terror, is another victory for them. I would say that this administration has done everything wrong as far as the prosecution of the war should go, but that is my own humble opinion. We have, so far, played right into their hands. Very seldom in our history have we needed a change in strategy so badly.

    Make no mistake, this is a clash of cultures, and it will test whether a democracy can endure the spectre of fear that these people are trying to ruin us with.


    "For what is the life of a man, if it is not interwoven with the life of former generations by a sense of history?" - Cicero

  15. #15
    Manningham's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Seoul, South Korea
    Posts
    346

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio XX Valeria Victrix
    I think this thread brings up a good point, and something that our nation has done in nearly every war we have ever fought, barring perhaps the Revolution. We consistently uderestimate our enemies, and ignore the tried and true rule of conflict, "know thy enemy." I would argue that we have never faced a conflict in which that idea is more important, and yet we seem to be totally ignoring it, instead preferring to slander them as insane, cowardly, and any other negative adjective that can possibly apply to them. We will lose this war if we don't change that ignorance. All it takes is putting yourself in the opposite position, but instead the American govt. and people accuse you of being a traitor if you do that.

    If you were a Middle Eastern citizen, and your life was ****-poor, mostly as a result of American policies that, throughout recent history have led to the life they lead. Now, we may say that is not our fault, and certainly we are partially right. But we have botched some Middle Eastern policies in the past, and ignoring that fact will do us no favors in the long run. But anyways, assume for a moment that you hated America so much that you wanted to fight it anywhere and everywhere you could. How would you go about doing that? Fighting it conventionally would lead to your death faster than you could even imagine it. So you must improvise. Few nations will take on America, but groups of people will, shrouded by secret organizations comprised of many nation's citizens. It's safe to assume that many of the terrorists assume that they will die in the struggle, and many in fact wish to do so, but they don't want to die for no purpose fighting a conventional war that will only give America more power. They want their own deaths to advance their ends to some extent, however small. So to make the most of their deaths, they strap bombs to themselves, kill many enemy civilians or soldiers, and instill fear in the survivors. That's how they try to win. Their deaths and the lives they take, while tragic, are just the means to an end. The fear they instill is their real weapon, not the bombs they strap to themselves. The more hysterical our society and media and politicians become, the more Patriot Acts, the more color-coded warning levels we create as a result of that fear, the more we let them win. The more sovereign nations, like Iraq, that we invade to further our War on Terror, is another victory for them. I would say that this administration has done everything wrong as far as the prosecution of the war should go, but that is my own humble opinion. We have, so far, played right into their hands. Very seldom in our history have we needed a change in strategy so badly.

    Make no mistake, this is a clash of cultures, and it will test whether a democracy can endure the spectre of fear that these people are trying to ruin us with.
    So right!

    Beyond the issue of whether invading Iraq was legitimate or not, the fact remains that a War on Terror cannot be won through combat. I've always hated the term, "War on Terror" precisely for precisely that reason, but it reflects this administration's inability to understand what we're dealing with and therefore find any lasting solution.

    To defeat terrorism, we have to defeat terrorist rhetoric and motivations. To do this, we have to change our policies - but here is where people take two vastly different standpoints.

    On the one hand we have those like me and apparently Valeria who feel that we have wronged people in the world, and although terrorist methods are decidedly immoral and extreme, it would be to everyone's benefit to change our policies. When the injustices we commit, through foreign policy or immoral business practice, are ceased, we will find that terrorist organizations may not view us as the great satan.

    On the other hand, we have people who see any change of policy as a result of terrorist activities and a surrender to their will, and therefore a shameful act of cowardice. I've heard many of these arguments, and this attitude seems to go hand in hand with the mess our American and British administrations feed us - that "terrorists are crazy" and "they attacked us because they hate freedom".

    There's always more to the equation than the terrorists being crazy, or hating freedom, even if those statements are true. They may hate our freedoms, but they wouldn't attack us if we didn't force our culture into theirs. They may be crazy, but they're obviously sane enough to discover the effectiveness of terrorist activity as conventional warfare would innevitably lead to their ruin.

    Why does Osama Bin Laden hate us so much? Well a big part of it, as Osama himself relates, is that we used Saudi Arabia as a launching point for Desert Storm. He was upset by our "infidel" presence in the Muslim holy land.

    This was an instance of our culture being thrusted into theirs, and while the vast majority of Saudi's didn't join an extremist terrorist organization, our act was upsetting enough to spark a significant rise in anti-American sentiments. Ultimately, a handful of upset Saudi's (and a few from other places) brought down the Twin Towers.

    Americans, I think, feel like we are the center of the world and that everyone should conform to our ways. I said it when I was younger, "why should I take French class when everyone speaks English (or 'American' as some kids called it) already? And if they don't, they should learn!" Indeed, many Americans feel that our culture is superior for any amount of reasons. I now understand that this has to be the least patriotic attitude one could harbor since it only serves to harm these United States. It is, in my mind, a form of treason.

    We need to understand that globalization is a complicated issue, and if we're going to co-exist peacefully with the rest of the world, we have to be more sensitive to the traditions of other cultures which have developed along a far different path from our own.

    Part of doing this is recognizing that terrorists attack us for reasons, not simply because they're crazy or irrational, and then working to remove those reasons.

  16. #16
    Legio XX Valeria Victrix's Avatar Great Scott!
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,054

    Default

    A huge misunderstanding most people have is that the terrorists attack us for WHO WE ARE, and not because of WHAT WE DO. They could honestly care less who we are, or how we live, they just are reacting in a very violent manner to what we have done in the region they live in. As long as we keep thinking they hate freedom, we're gonna keep getting it wrong. They WANT freedom, but you know what? WE don't give it to them, because, case in point, we support monarchical and oppressive regimes like that of Saudi Arabia, so we can get our cheap oil supply. If we could just see beyond our own selfish desires, and give the Saudi Arabian PEOPLE their freedom by removing THAT regime, then I'm sure there'd be some oil in the deal for us. Oh, and they'd probably stop trying to kill us too.

    Furthermore, going it alone, as the administration has repeatedly said it is willing to do, will not work. The world is going in the direction of interdependence, where all nations rely on all others for their own survival and standard of living. The more we deny this trend, the farther behind we will be left when the world finally realizes that nationalism and independence are a thing of the past.


    "For what is the life of a man, if it is not interwoven with the life of former generations by a sense of history?" - Cicero

  17. #17
    Civis
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    110

    Default

    about the question raised before by Sqeakus Maximus:
    Well, what kind of target is there that compares with: New York, Washington DC, or any of those other major population centres on the coast?
    i lived in Wyoming for one year. the town was small and irrelivent. the next town over (15minutes) was the same: small and irrelivent. Except in one aspect: that neighboring town of Sinclair had in it an Oil Refinery. So contrary to the beleif that there is nothing important in those states out there (one that i used to follow) there are actually some sites of great importance. Also, i beleive a major highway went through the town i lived in (Rawlins) and continued on to Nevada. Many trucks drove on that highway carrying nuclear waste to be dumped in an area that is unknown to me.

  18. #18
    smack's Avatar Complaints Department
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Asheville, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,535

    Default

    I'm impressed with the depth here. Carry on!

    As to the topic, but not to derail the current conversatoin:

    Its war that is insane.

    "War on Terror" Now that is a topic. Its an asinine idea. Defeat an aspect of human nature with a military? We might as well declare a "Taxation on Bad Thoughts" for all that is worth. I can't stoop low enough to say that anyone really believes in the war on terror, but I guess they must.

    Strategy: Make a requirement that every citizen spend one year in an effort to 'take away the occasion for war'. If they don't like it, they can do the grunt work. If they believe its possible, they can lead. Thats how to rid ourselves of fear and violence, in my opinion (TWC's token pacifist).
    Last edited by smack; July 13, 2005 at 11:10 PM.

    In patronicum svb: Spartan
    Patronum celcum quo: teecee, Old Celt, SigniferOne
    If you dare: My Journal or If you care: The Price Tag

  19. #19
    Manningham's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Seoul, South Korea
    Posts
    346

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by prviper720
    about the question raised before by Sqeakus Maximus:


    i lived in Wyoming for one year. the town was small and irrelivent. the next town over (15minutes) was the same: small and irrelivent. Except in one aspect: that neighboring town of Sinclair had in it an Oil Refinery. So contrary to the beleif that there is nothing important in those states out there (one that i used to follow) there are actually some sites of great importance. Also, i beleive a major highway went through the town i lived in (Rawlins) and continued on to Nevada. Many trucks drove on that highway carrying nuclear waste to be dumped in an area that is unknown to me.
    The trucks with nuclear waste worry me. Those are huge targets, but the refinery really isn't.

    I live in northern NJ, just off exit 14 of the Turnpike and 30 miles outside NYC. On the stretch of the Turnpike where I live, right next to Newark Airport, is one of the largest industrial stretches in the states and it isn't guarded nearly well enough. I saw a story just today about security there and people can break into one of the chemical plants as easily as burrowing a hole under the "No Tresspassing" sign on a chain link fence ... and indeed someone had.

    The location of these targets is within, if I'm not mistaken, the most heavily populated area in the United States.

  20. #20
    Manningham's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Seoul, South Korea
    Posts
    346

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legio XX Valeria Victrix
    A huge misunderstanding most people have is that the terrorists attack us for WHO WE ARE, and not because of WHAT WE DO. They could honestly care less who we are, or how we live, they just are reacting in a very violent manner to what we have done in the region they live in. As long as we keep thinking they hate freedom, we're gonna keep getting it wrong. They WANT freedom, but you know what? WE don't give it to them, because, case in point, we support monarchical and oppressive regimes like that of Saudi Arabia, so we can get our cheap oil supply. If we could just see beyond our own selfish desires, and give the Saudi Arabian PEOPLE their freedom by removing THAT regime, then I'm sure there'd be some oil in the deal for us. Oh, and they'd probably stop trying to kill us too.

    Furthermore, going it alone, as the administration has repeatedly said it is willing to do, will not work. The world is going in the direction of interdependence, where all nations rely on all others for their own survival and standard of living. The more we deny this trend, the farther behind we will be left when the world finally realizes that nationalism and independence are a thing of the past.
    I totally agree with the first section here, but I'd like to point out a difficulty in dealing with the Saudi government. I'm not sure how we could replace the Saudi regime without angering Islamic communities worldwide. While the Saudi royal family is no government of the people or for the people, we're talking about directly intervening in the governance of the Muslim holy land, and the backlash would be horrific.

    I think the best way to weaken that regime would have to be the development of effective alternate energy sources. We need to invest tax-dollars to this end as it will serve us environmentally, politically, and in terms of national security in that our ended reliance upon oil and fossil fuels would alleviate any need to cooperate with states such as Saudi Arabia.

    I agree about the need for international partners and allies - just because we're on top now doesn't mean things will always be so. In fact, we won't always be on top, and I think a good question to ask ourselves is whether we want people remembering America as the nation that ignored the hardships of others and exploited their weaknesses out of the desire for economic gain or cultural xenophobia. Do we want to be exploited as we have done to others?

    Total national interdependence is still a radical idea, but I think I agree with you. I wouldn't mind if you'd elaborate on the topic though, as I can't see too much of the trend taking root right now.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •