Terrorism: Shooting From the Hip

Terrorism is the belief that the use of fear as a weapon is justified. Terror + ism = Terrorism. Attitudes towards terrorism can be defined in two ways and each definition is supported by someone based solely on their position to the reason for the terroristic idea to occur. One who believes that terrorism – the use of fear for gain – is a good thing sees the act of instilling fear in another group to be necessary to accomplish a goal. Those who hold the opposite opinion may also desire to accomplish the same goal, yet are not so taken by the by-all-means-necessary philosophy. They may disagree about the use of fear based on its ramifications, based on morals, or based on the rule of law. Likewise, those who do not desire this specific goal, will find themselves against the use of fear to accomplish it, out of sheer logic.

The seed of terrorism is the idea. Every terrorist has some sort of idea or ideology that they wish to procure. Let us take the actions of the Madrid subway bombers as an example. Their desire was to create discord and chaos, fear. Then we have Osama Bin Laden who used fear-based messages and a criminal organization as a means to procure fear not only in the United States but throughout the world in general. They are terrorists, ones who spread fear.

There is a question as to whether terrorists have to actually partake in physical activities, the maiming or murdering of innocent people (on September 11, 2001 for example). This is not necessarily the case. There are many different ways to go about terrorizing and physical threat is simply the bluntest of them. If you invade a sovereign nation you are a terrorist state, like Germany during World War I and World War II. However, if you soften the blow, envelope it with politicking and self-righteous candor, you could possibly pass off blatant terrorism as something in their best interest. This pseudo-political terrorism is called imperialism and it also goes by colonialism in a slightly varied form. It is simply the invasion of a territory and the usurpation of power from one group by another.

Now-a-days however, imperialism and colonialism are looked upon as a dark stain on world history by most of the first world. Imperialism and colonialism lead to exploitation no matter the intent. The war in Iraq is a good present day example of the backlash of imperialism. The President of the United States unilaterally decided that Iraq was enough of a threat to American national security that the situation warranted an invasion and occupying force. American troops conquered Iraq and set up a stagnant democratic government. However, the government is too weak to stand and if American forces pull out, it will fall into further chaos. While before there was a dictatorship and life was for the most part bearable, now with an inept democracy one might not have a life to bear. President Bush's act of pseudo-political terrorism caused more trouble than good in the region, destabilized the American economy, and created a breeding ground for contempt of American ideals.

So far terrorism has been described as an organizational or governmental action that occurs outside one's nation of origin. However, there are also forms of “home-grown” terrorism. Timothy McVeigh set off a bomb destroying a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995 killing 168 and wounding at least 800 including over a dozen small children. The “Shoe-Bomber”, Richard Reid, failed to set of “shoe-bomb” explosives on a flight from Paris to Miami just three months after September 11, 2001. Likewise, terrorism can be undertaken by a government on one's own people. This was done most famously by Nazi Germany during World War II, exterminating millions of its own people (Jews, gypsies, gays, disabled, etc.) in death camps set up solely for the purpose of ethnic (and “weakness”) cleansing. It was also done by Stalin in Soviet Russia. He exterminated at least 3 million of his own people but may also directly or indirectly killed another 27 million, records are unclear. The most accepted number seems to be between 6-8 million. Again, there have been countless massacres throughout world history: Pol Pot in Cambodia, Pizarro, Cortes and the Spanish Conquistadors and the Native Americans, United States, French and British and the Native Americans, the Ottomans and the Armenian Genocide, and countless others. It is clear that throughout history, nations have killed millions of their own people and justified it.

With some examples of terrorism now given, it is also important to understand the motive behind why a person or group decides to partake in terrorism. What is clear is that as a whole, the groups or people in question seemed to feel that they have been wronged in one way or another. Whether or not they have actually been wronged is a matter for fierce debate, but the argument remains that they believe that they have been wronged nonetheless. The Palestinians for example believe that the Israeli Jews that settled in the former Palestine territory after World War I have wronged them by destroying their culture and uprooting their people. Perhaps they have a point; someone once said that if the world had any justice at all then Israel would be in eastern Germany. Yet, there are counterarguments to this statement, primarily that the Jews had been there even before the Palestinians.

Israel and Palestine, in fact, have an interesting relationship. They are terrorists against each other. Traditionally, one group or person who was wronged terrorized another group. In this instance however, two groups have wronged each other and have commenced terrorizing each other. The same had been true for Northern Ireland and Ireland as well as the conflict between Pakistani Muslims and Indian Hindus. Each was wronged by the other and decided that they were wronged so badly that it was worth killing each other over. This seems to be the driving point, that one must be angry enough at another that the rules of morality no longer apply.

There is a second reason for terrorism however that has nothing to do with being wronged and that was the example offered by Hitler: ethnic cleansing. These instances are not based on particular wrongs, but rather general wrongs, that the Jews were responsible for a plague or a famine, or some other stereotype. Racism is a powerful tool for terrorism. This shines true in many African nations, the conflicts in the Congo and Darfur to name two. Ethnic cleansing is also the goal of organizations like the Ku Klux Klan that believes that America should only be for white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestants and that all others are below them and below the reward of democracy. In truth, there does not have to be a specific wrong, a general wrong, a societal bias, is all that is needed to foment the ideals of terrorism and thereby the actors and actions of terrorism in kind.

Now finally, the question remains: Is terrorism justified? Yes and no. If you have been wronged then yes terrorism is a viable option, provided that you have been wronged enough. However, if you have not been wronged enough, or taught to think that you have been wronged enough, you will probably not see terrorism as a viable option. You may be against it or simply ambivalent to it. The only other view of terrorism is that of an outsider or of the group or person being terrorized. In these cases, the answer is always: No. Terrorism is never an option from their points of view either because they are affected directly by it or because they see it as barbaric and do not understand the blatant wrong committed on this group of people as they see it with their own eyes.

Most people are outsiders to terrorism or have had terrorism in some way affect their lives, their families, or their country, religion, or ethnicity and therefore are likely to hold the belief that terrorism is wrong. Regardless of whether a nation is democratic majority will rule. If a majority of people say terrorism is wrong then it is wrong. It is morally, ethically, and ideologically wrong. It is wrong to take an innocent life to make up for a personal loss. It is wrong to instill fear in another for any reason even if they seem to have justifiably deserved it. In terrorizing one merely continues the cycle of wronging and the cycle of pain and suffering. Nothing good comes out of this.

That ideology is essentially the unofficial official world doctrine on terrorism. A majority believes that it is wrong. It is wrong. The habit of violent solutions must be broken before you can rid the world of violence. For the habit to be broken, the cycle of wronging must also be broken. There have been many examples of terrorism throughout history and each has its own wrongs attached to them. Sometimes too there are wrongs attached to the solutions. In the end, the solution must be to treat terrorism like organized crime, because that is what it is. You must break the cycle of wrongs and bring these people to fair justice. Only this way will each party get what they want, retribution and justice. But, until the world understands that terror begets terror, there will be a lot more terrorism in the future.

Fairness and Equality

Wow, it's been a long time since my last entry. Let's make the most of it...

Logic is something that people have a lot of trouble with. People don't like logic, especially when it dismantles their long-held beliefs. God, religion, marriage, politics, the whole gambit really, I've made myself clear on. I've argued logically and I've been dismissed. I give proof but they say that it isn't true even if I can back it up. These people sneer in the face of reasoned argument and logical debate. They believe things that make them feel good, make them feel safe, and over all make them feel accepted. God, religion, marriage, politics in general, and a million more topics. It's a wonder why I haven't stopped yet. Maybe it is just to damn important.

Who has the right to stop children from getting an education? Really, who is it that has the right to tell someone that they cannot gain a proper education? Who is it that tells someone that they can or cannot marry someone else? Who is it that could possibly be allowed to hold a lean on the definition of such an idea? Who can tell someone that they are not allowed to be healthy, not allowed to survive and live a normal, long, healthy life?

More importantly, what KIND of person tries to stop children from getting an education? What KIND of person tries to stop two loving people from getting married? What KIND of person has the right to tell the ill that they cannot get well again? What KIND of morally and ethically unscrupulous individual was allowed to do these things?

How about this... What kind of person are you if you refuse a child an education? What kind of person are you if you intentionally refuse to help a child get an education if you can? What kind of person are you if you refuse to recognize not only love but two adults ability to understand their own personal emotions? What kind of person are you if you intentionally refuse to accept the marriage of two people solely based on the fact that you don't believe that they are or could be in love? What kind of person are you if you refuse medical care to the sick? What kind of a person are you if you intentionally refuse to help a sick person get care if you have the means to do so?

How does abject refusal of these subjects justify your moral and ethical standing? How could you possibly consider yourself moral or ethical if you refuse to help children grow up to be functioning members of society to the fullest of their ability? How could you possibly consider yourself moral or ethical if you believe that you above all others knows what's right for everyone regardless of what they believe, feel, or understand? How could you possibly consider yourself moral or ethical if you refuse to grant medical treatment to the ill when it is certainly in your power to do so?

It is your fault if this child grows up to become a statistic. It is your fault if they become a drain on the system, having not the means to raise their families or pay their bills, clogging the prison system costing the taxpayers millions more a year, or draining funds from the medical community because they are not able to hold down a job that provides insurance.

What kind of person are you?

It is your fault if hate is brought upon two people who want to marry. It is your fault if these people are dissuaded from the truth and assuage their true self with a mixture of gin, a loveless marriage, and clinical depression and self denial.

What kind of a person are you?

It is your fault if money is drained from the economy because you are unwilling to help someone who is ill before their situation become dire. It is your fault if their impending illness is left uncured and their families flirt with bankruptcy as a means to escape crippling drug payments. It is your fault if they fail to set up a proper environment for their children who then don't amount to anything and turn to a life of crime or substandard work with no insurance or benefits. It is your fault if they infect others with their illness unknowingly or unstoppably because of lack of proper treatment or counseling.

What kind of person are you?

This is why we need universal education for as far as they can advance. This is why we need to dump the Defense of Marriage Act. This is why we need not-for-profit health and dental insurance.

It is the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do. It is the ethical thing to do. And only you can do it. Vote for the only candidate who supports these measures in the upcoming primary election season. Dennis Kucinich.

On Government and Budgetary Manner

Government today holds many duties and there are many others in contention. However, there has to be a reasoned approach, a ranking system, delineating worth amongst these optional duties, as at the present rate of taxation all is impossible.

There is a fundamental flaw in the way we have set up government in this regard. That is, government has been made a top-down system, whereby federal ranks over state, and state ranks over local. While this is useful for the retention of a Union, it is unhelpful in regards to budget spending. Economically, government would work more smoothly in a bottom-up fashion whereby local leaders receive first dibs on funds, state second, and federal third. In this fashion, society would work more fluidly with schools funded, roads paved, and so forth first. Likewise funds would exist for city police and firefighters at a higher, yet still necessary, rate.

Contentions would be had to the lack of funds left available on state and federal levels after the city finished its budgeteering. This just goes to show how in need the local level is under our current system. I contend that this would be beneficial however. To get funds the federal government would need to raise taxes. This increase on useless items and agendas would remove from office Congressmen and Presidents, Governors, and State Legislators by the vote of the people in the next election.

Of course, a system is all well and good on paper, in practice it will need regulation and purpose. What is the purpose of government? Government is an assembly that represents the people of the nation. Therefore, it is responsible solely to the people. However, this is not a means for the majority to enslave or rule over the minority. Actually, the opposite is also false. The minority does not get favored treatment over the majority view either. However as the government represents all people individually it must also represent all of their interests individually. Rights are not bargainable and there are no such things as liberties, that is, government approved rights don't exist. Rights are universal and eternal as the government is not a body other than a shadow representation of the will of the people and cannot restrict rights just as one person could not restrict the rights of another for reasons other than criminal activity, and even therein only for an acceptable, fair amount of time.

In addition to this, we must understand the economic role of government. What should the government raise money for and who should get to decide where it goes? The government, as a mass-representation of the individual will, can only raise funds (that is tax) for the means to achieve goals that cannot be achieved by single people and small groups of people. Government money cannot be used to support or refute partisan causes as by definition government serves all people individually and to do so would infringe on that notion.

Thus, funds move from bottom-up, working for small causes first and the biggest, most important causes last. In this fashion, tax hikes will be made for important (people-willed) goals and their local goals will too be served an everyone will be happier. Large goals will also be accomplished if they are important because they tend to be vitally important or virtually fluff or baselessly useless. Local government will deal with local issues, then states will deal with state-wide issues, and finally the federal government will deal with national issues. Because of the constraint on usage of funds for states and federally, they will restrict themselves in order to their own business. And, by a simple rule, lower levels will not interfere with actions that extend outside their jurisdiction. Therefore, each body has their duties, each has its constraints, voters have power over taxation, and thereby they also have power over the budgetary matters of their city, state, and nation at a higher rate than they currently do. This system will lessen budgetary problems by giving the weakest the most power and the most powerful the least strength. Accountability will exist for taxation and wasteful spending will be shrunk back to the local level, where inherently it will be cheaper. Then our government will make economic sense.

Penny for Your Thoughts?

Time is not conducive to free thought. That is, time when used elsewise is useless to philosophical debate. Laborers and wage workers have little time for abstract thinking. They have jobs with duties and don't want to be fired. Some would say that education leads to erudite thought. This is false. Erudite thought is brought about by two things: necessity and interest. However, in kind, when bogged down in activity, the erudite are useless to thoughtful endeavour. They haven't got the time to do it.

This dichotomy seems at odds against itself, but you have to take into account that there are uneducated people who have created brilliance. Einstein, for instance, was a habitually bad student, yet he became the greatest thinker in many generations.

So now we see that education does not dictate success either. Interest does. An interested mind fosters learning, understanding, and inspiration. There are after all many educated people who are unsuccessful because of disinterest. If you are enormously wealthy then you needn't be interested in erudition.

That said, why do workers represent erudition at a lower rate and why do they also represent inspiration and thought at a lower rate? Simply put, mindless jobs detriment intelligent thought. When one is hopelessly busy trying to feed families and raise children they didn't have the time to set aside for independent thought. This is why fewer ideas of intellectual value can be seen coming of the lower classes. One who needs to work to get paid cannot take time off to find interest as easily as those who get vacation or those who don't need to work in a traditional sense.

Why is this important then? The person who cannot have time cannot think cannot better themselves. These people are stuck in a bitter struggle to pay bills who have little time or no time to sit and struggle with independent ideas. The problem becomes self-serving when you cannot get ahead, particularly in a culture of debt and even more so in the present economic condition. These people, with a lack of independent thought, become a mass of influencible people. One who hasn't the time to think for themselves will not object, will go along with everything those in power say provided that the status-quo remains.

Those without time for independent thought become a voting block that is easily used to achieve means detrimental to the well-being of these people themselves. A lack of time causes this. Education is a vague term with a vague applications. What is known is that education doesn't beget intelligent thought any more than a lack thereof creates the opposite. Time is required to stimulate interest. Interest is necessary to foment independent thought. Independent thought creates socio-economic movement and makes people responsible for the well-being of their own rights, just as it should be to procure happiness in general and a better society for all.

The question remains: How do we achieve the illusive goal of finding time?