The Soldier and The Terrorist: A Conversation
August 8th, 2008Most of us know, deep in our gut, that terrorism—the use of force against innocent civilians for the sake of political advantage—is wrong. But proving that is often more difficult than it first seems. The following hypothetical conversation is a case in point.
Soldier: I can’t believe you guys; strapping on suicide bombs and blowing up innocent civilians. Have you no shame, no sense of decency?
Terrorist: I can’t believe you guys; strapping on your seatbelts and firing missiles at this or that target, when you know full well that innocent people will be killed. Have you no shame, no sense of decency?
Soldier: There’s a big difference here. We do not intend to kill innocent civilians. You do. The innocent people we kill are collateral damage.
Terrorist: “Collateral damage?” Isn’t that a fancy cover-up for doing exactly what we do? We intend to kill innocent civilians. You don’t intend it, but know full well that innocent civilians will die in your operation. So what’s the big difference here? Pretending you don’t intend something that you know will happen anyway?
Soldier: Look, we’re wearing uniforms. We’re properly equipped. We comply with military conventions. And we do what it takes to defend our country.
Terrorist: Well, we don’t wear uniforms, because we’d rather not get shot before carrying out our missions. We are not properly equipped because we don’t have the means. We defy military conventions because we don’t have much of a military. And we fight, using what we have, on behalf of a cause we deeply believe in. We make do with what we have. Once again, all I see is moral equivalency between you and us.
Soldier: You’re so full of it. All you can do is to hide in the shadows, like a rat, spreading fear wherever you go, and using violence to force people to your way of thinking.
Terrorist: And when you fire your missiles, and your bombs, and your guns, aren’t you also placing fear in the hearts of people, and forcing them to swallow your policies against their will? What’s the big difference here?
Soldier: Yes, but you’re so loony, you believe that killing innocent people will make you a martyr, and will get you into heaven, surrounded by 72 virgins no less. How stupid is that?
Terrorist: And when you kill and die, your people will celebrate you as a military hero, even if innocent civilians died in the process. How stupid is that?
Soldier: I fight for my country because I believe in what she stands for.
Terrorist: Do you believe that your country makes mistakes, mistakes which cost innocent lives?
Soldier: Well, everyone makes mistakes.
Terrorist: So you will fight and kill for your country even if you know she makes mistakes?
Soldier: I will defend my country no matter what.
Terrorist: So I fight for the cause I believe in, no matter what, even if I’m not always right in what I believe, and even if I have to do some unsightly things, like killing civilians.
Soldier: But your cause sucks. At least I’m fighting for something noble, like freedom and democracy, and on behalf of a nation that upholds the rule of law.
Terrorist: I don’t see any freedom and democracy in the places you occupy. And where is the rule of law when you so easily suspend the rule of law, when you have to fight people like me.
Soldier: At least I know what I’m fighting for. What the hell are you fighting for?
Terrorist: I fight for God’s law, and His law is the real “rule of law.” His authority exceeds the authority of your secular nation. And I place my life in His hands, and in His service.
Soldier: So you don’t see much difference in the tactics we use?
Terrorist: Not really. We basically go around doing the same things. We just justify ourselves in different ways.
Soldier: And as to motivation; I’m fighting for my country, and you’re fighting for God.
Terrorist: Well, I don’t have a country as yet, since you stole it, so I fight for God instead.
Soldier: So there’s no big difference between terrorism and military action? Is that it?
Terrorist: No difference that amount to any real moral significance.
Soldier: Well then, I guess we’ll have to let the people decide.
Terrorist: The people? What do you mean?
Soldier: We have our agenda, and you have yours. It will be up to the people on the street to decide what they prefer?
Terrorist: We are at one with the people. We represent the people. There is not even one ray of sunshine between us and the people.
Soldier: That’s funny. But when some of your people dare to voice their disagreement with you, you usually end up killing them as well.
Terrorist: People who turn against us, are with the enemy, and deserve to be treated like the enemy.
Soldier: Well then, maybe there is a difference between us after all. Citizens, who disagree with what we do, or with the government we defend, have a right to disagree, and have a right to vote the government out, and there’s nothing much we can do about it. So maybe it will be up to the people to decide. If they don’t like our government’s policies, they will vote it out of office. But if they don’t like you, they may very well find another way to put you out of commission.
Terrorist: We are ready to die for our cause. We will not allow ourselves to be intimidated by you, or by anyone else, for that matter, even the people on the street.
Soldier: Well maybe there’s nothing much we can do about you, though we’ll keep on trying. But I can assure you, my friend: if you or I begin to walk out of step with the will of the people, they will make their will known to us, and there will be nothing that either one of us could do to stop that. The will of the people will not be deterred. It will be up to them to decide our fate. It will be up to them, once and for all, to decide what they want for themselves, for their children, and for the countless generations of children yet to come.
Loading ...
Loading...
I think the last comment is correct, and that worries me. The people always do determine what they want and what will happen. But how do they always know what is right? Furthermore who determines what is proper? People can be easily mislead into thinking that policies and practices against their self-interest are actually good. How do you prevent that?
On the note of civilian casualties: Why don’t we use first-person shooter games to solve global conflicts? Just have each party train a team and then play a couple matches. Then no one gets killed and everyone blows off steam. Maybe in the future a system can be developed where actual soldiers can have simulated battles. (j/k?)
They don’t always know what is right. But they’ve been given the common sense to figure it out. And if they use their common sense, even if it means leaving by the wayside a lot of what they believe, then chances are good that they will make the right decisions. Case in point: The cavemen survived some two million years. How did they do that? They used their common sense- the collective wisdom born of shared experience.
You teach them how to think, not just what to believe. And once they begin to think straight, they will not as easily succumb to false belief. I’m sorry to say, but it could well be that most of what we believe is false. If we have the courage to face that possibility, we could then put in place ideas which make more sense, and chuck those that don’t: like honor killing, like female genital mutilation, like virgins in paradise, like imperialism, like running our economies on fossil fuels, like allowing people to starve to death, like coercion in religion, like killing in the name of God, like all the other stupid beliefs we hold so dear to our hearts.
Not a bad idea, Madmax. When God created the world, he put equal parts of good and evil, so that each could give definition to the other. But He didn’t necessarily demand that evil must be realized. Therefore, in the future, if there is to be a future, which is quickly becoming an open question, we could give definition to good, not by allowing evil to happen, but simply by imagining it.
It’s sort of what you’re suggesting. You believe in virtual battles instead of real ones. I believe in imagining evil, and avoiding it, instead of living it.
“You teach them how to think, not just what to believe.”
Is it possible to separate opinion from pure thought? Thats always been a tough task.
Also, common sense can be quite subjective. Different people or groups of people tend to have different experiences and even tend to interpret them differently. What is common sense to you or me will not be to someone else. There has to be some set of absolutes that all humans can relate to (religious moral codes?). Otherwise, it seems to me that everything will be relative.
“What is common sense to you or me will not be to someone else. There has to be some set of absolutes that all humans can relate to”
How about starting with, “Killing children is not a good thing”?
Then someone would say, “unless it is the children of the murderer who killed my family.” Traumatized people don’t often think logically or mercifully, and can barely distinguish between what is morally right and wrong.
I’m sure you’re right that there’ll be people who say that. Those people are never going to help bring peace.
And I’m sure someone would be saying to this statement: Yes you are right, we should round up all these evil people and kill them, to make peace more achievable.
So now I am thinking of this old saying: Fighting for peace is like having sex for virginity.
I don’t think the second group you describe is going to be very helpful, either. Quite the opposite, in fact.
The moral equivalancy argument you make here is too simplistic to take seriously.
You barely scratch the surface of the differences between the two entities.
Nissim:
With all due respect, I think that the west has totally misunderstood suicide attacks. Indeed there might be some people who just do it to meet their virgins in the heaven. However, in such events, religion often plays the role of a catalyst and does not constitute the real cause. So, “Soldier: But your cause sucks…” and similar parts of your hypothetical argument somehow apply just to a fraction of so-called terrorists, not all of them.
I agree with Mohammad.
Sometimes I am bothered by the way people say “Soldier” and “Terrorist.” It makes people immediately sympathize with whatever the soldier’s side is representing becuase the word claims that they are merely retaliating which is quite far from the case. Your conversation should have been between Terrorist A and Terrorist B.
Soldiers cause terror, especially in the case of Palestine which it seems like what you are referring to mostly. Thus soldiers should be referred to as terrorists especially if they are fighting a long war where many soldiers were guilty of abuse.
Dictionary.com defines terrorism as:
Soldiers do that. And here’s why:
Because they are guilty of using these tactics. What is terrorism?
The IDF in a nutshell.
This conversation is between Terrorist A and Terrorist B. There are no soldiers involved; both of them resort to terror and violence to fight for their cause and defend their country against each other’s terror. Somehow within your post I felt that you were implying that the terrorist’s cause was illegitimate, perhaps this is why you ended the statement with the Soldier’s remarks instead.
The so-called terrorist thinks the same. “Well maybe there’s nothing much we can do about your military’s invasions, house demolitions, checkpoint humiliation, imprisonments, or illegal settlements. But we’ll sure keep trying, even if it means dying in the process.”
In an objective conversation people would feel an equal amount of sympathy for both sides, but here I feel you are trying to get people to sympathize solely with “Soldier” and precisely because of your use of “terrorist.” It totally dehumanizes a person and strips them of any worth or importance, this word throughout the globe is associated with evil and is a result of a huge PR campaign saying who and who isn’t a terrorist: Arab/Muslim fighters are terrorists while the IDF and U.S military are fighting for freedom, simply because their militaries are regarded as more ‘legitimate.’ Even when guilty of abuse none of them are referred to as terrorists, when they are the epitome of this very word.
By the way, notice I did not deny that Terrorist B is a terrorist, I am simply requesting that you use the same word for two violent people who use the same tactics, making you more objective. We can’t keep applying “terrorist” the way the mainstream has done it for the past decade; it is inaccurate. Whoever fits the genereal definition is a terrorist. Many soldiers certainly do fit this definition which I have highlighted above, and there are many others who don’t, which is fine. I am not saying all soldiers are terrorists, but a faction of them are.
A conversation between two extremes however is not between a soldier and a terrorist; it’s between two terrorists representing opposite sides. And terrorists within the military, believe it or not, do exist.
hi
idiotic muslims need to stop using the phrase terrorist.
bnrainwahsed weak minded morons!’
the only terrorist in the world are the israelis and the USA
along with butt sniffing european nations
I used to think that, Madmax, but I don’t anymore. I am coming to believe that there are universal principles of common sense which apply to all humanity. However, they are general principles, and they require that people apply them to specific circumstances. That application can be somewhat subjective, but if people stick to the basic principles, they will find common ground, and the chances will be increased that universal decision making will coincide around the world, which is what is needed to manage a Global Economy.
There are absolute principles, Elephant, which are universal. They are found in virtually all Holy Scriptures. For example, The Golden Rule: Treat others as you would have them treat you, is universal. Why is it universal, Elephant? Is it just coincidence? No. It is universal because it is based in logic, not unlike the logic that underpins the study of mathematics. You show kindness to me, and I will reciprocate in kind. There is no way to escape the self-evident rationality of this principle. We do have the choice, if we wish, to ignore it. But it will still remain in the wings to show us the way if we so choose.
I understand your abhorrence of violence, Esra’a. But I suspect that there are times when we will have to fight for peace, literally. I wish that were not the case. But there are people in the world who have no intention of ushering in an age of peace. We will have to fight these people. But we can fight them with more than just military action. We can fight them with better ideas. But even so, there will be times when we will have no choice but to fight them on their own terms. And blood will be shed.
You’re right, patb, and even so, the post ran a bit long. What I was trying to suggest was that with regard to tactics, there are times when military actions come perilously close to terrorist operations, in that there are civilian casualties, and in that fear is used to intimidate the citizenry.
However, when it comes to motivation, here there could be quite a few differences between the soldier and the terrorist. For the most part, as far as I can see, the soldier fights to defend his country, and his way of life. Most soldiers do not relish the thought of causing death, destruction, and despair, although their actions, at times, bring about such results.
The terrorist, however, is motivated by a whole host of ideas and beliefs. And that is part of the problem. They could be motivated by so many things that it may be impossible to find a solution that satisfies them. Their motivations are as varied and subjective as can be: some want their own country, some believe in destroying another country, some believe in imposing their version of religion, some are just frustrated and want to lash out, some seek the approval of their people, some search for paradise, some seek God’s approval, etc.
The terrorist is all over the place with regard to motivation. And to be willing to blow yourself up, you have to believe in your cause absolutely. The same can be said of some soldiers. But at least with soldiers, we know where they’re coming from. When it comes to terrorists, we can only guess at their mindset, because for most of us, their thinking is beyond our sensibilities. For most of us, peace makes a lot of sense. For terrorists, peace doesn’t even come into consideration.
And this takes us to Mohammad’s point,
I agree with that, but it is understandable. Suicide attacks are outside the pale for most Westerns, and non-Westerners as well. But I don’t think it is so difficult to understand. People blow themselves up for things they believe in. Once you believe in something strongly enough, then giving up your life seems like a small price to pay. That is why it is so important to have a handle on what people come to believe. If they come to believe in certain things, it will be impossible to stop them from acting in accordance with their beliefs, even if their beliefs will deny their people justice.
If I did that, Esra’a, how would anyone know that a soldier is speaking with a terrorist. Or perhaps that is your point. That there is no difference.
Well, with due respect, I don’t agree. It is true, as you suggest, that there are instances when the tactics used by both come perilously close to one another. But as I said, the soldier is easier to understand, and easier to control. Once the government says no, then its no. There is no such control of terrorism. And there is no easy way to fathom what is going on in the terrorist’s head.
In terms of Israel, I said it before, and I’ll say it again: There is no nation on earth that is better able, and more willing, to help Palestinians, and to bring justice to them, than Israel.
Yesterday I read about an Israeli computer entrepreneur who just started the first joint venture with Palestinians. He hired and trained 40 Palestinian workers, and they are launching a product that will allow you to access your computer files on the internet. That way, you won’t need to carry your laptop around. The Palestinian manager in the West Bank said that business between Israelis and Palestinians is the only way to peace, where politics has failed. Of course, it is hard for them to meet one another because of the wall, and check-points etc. But they meet with tele-conferencing. Granted, Esra’a, not an ideal situation, but for me, it is probably the only way forward.
I wish that Mid-East Youth could one day become involved in launching such a project.
“I am coming to believe that there are universal principles of common sense which apply to all humanity.”
What are these principles?
“Well, with due respect, I don’t agree. It is true, as you suggest, that there are instances when the tactics used by both come perilously close to one another. But as I said, the soldier is easier to understand, and easier to control. Once the government says no, then its no. There is no such control of terrorism. And there is no easy way to fathom what is going on in the terrorist’s head.”
Agreed. However, I do not really think the goal of this post was to discuss whose the terrorist and who is not. It was more focused on the idea that the people can control their own destiny regardless of the poor situation imposed upon them by others. The main questions that need adressing are: How do you get the people to work together for the greater good? How can you assure that the goal everyone is working toward is, in fact, inline with the interests of everyone?
In the past few decades, the government has not once said no to their own form of terrorism.
What’s going on in a violent soldier’s head is not any different. The worst crimes in the history of humanity was caused by soldiers in wars throughout the world. These crimes would amount to way, way more than what any terrorist organization has ever caused.
Your reasoning might apply if a war only took 5 months or a few years, where a government’s orders are relevant. We are talking about a lifetime here, where the situation is clearly terrorism.
So this is a “more formal” and state-sponsored terrorist speaking to another terrorist.
Before everything else, let’s distinguish what I call legitimate suicide attacks (which target enemy though it might lead to some sort of collateral damage as well) from illegitimate ones (solely targeting innocent civilians). As for the latter, I think nobody here would agree with it. However, I can understand the former and may be approving of it as a legitimate mean of resistance according to international standards. Yet the western observer can’t understand such attacks due to their suicidal nature: “what makes you pay such a high price… i.e. your life?”
Not a long time ago, patriotism was a well-defined course of wars. But after technological advances, patriotism vanished to an extent. America attacks a country, makes the people bear 1 million losses, and America herself loses few thousands. In this case, the occupier can’t understand suicide attacks: “why do they do it?” For the occupied, however, suicide attacks are just a conventional mean of resistance. And this takes me to next step. Let me ask a question:
In your opinion, if Iraqi people were equipped with F16 planes and Cruise missiles to shoot at American targets, would they still resort to suicide attacks? Or, if Lebanese Hizbollah was equipped with Stealth planes, would it still randomly fire missiles into civilian areas? I don’t think so. Here, your current definition of Terrorism is just a matter of equipment. And, consequently, this definition helps the superior maintain its superiority, while suppressing the inferior. And this is not selling a vision of hope, I feel.
In the Arab media even what the West calls “terrorists” are considered and defined as “soldiers” here. Rightly so, I say. I am not agreeing with any tactics, violence is wrong especially if innocent people continue to be endangered or killed. But soldier is the right word applied to the occupied resistance as well.
From dictionary.com this is a soldier:
What is an army:
What is a military:
For here let us use the example of Hezbollah. The U.S and Israeli media calls them terrorists. Here they are “soldiers.” And you don’t have to agree with their tactics to call them that.
They too receive orders from their heads, just like the government. They too can be stopped depending on what they are told and requested to do. They function exactly like any other military, except with less financial assistance, sophisticated technology and arms. Suicide bombs do not = terrorism, it’s a weapon. Japan used the same tactics, they were all soldiers. No one called them terrorists just because they “exploded.”
So then it would also work if you say: “A conversation between Soldier A and Soldier B.”
But to call one side “soldiers” and the other “terrorists,” it is just really biased, and you are doing what the mainstream has been playing with for years, successfully convincing millions of applying this strict and oppressive terminology.
The key factor inside a courtroom to determine guilt or innocence and thus whether punishment should be meted out involves the word intent. What are the intentions in the mind of the individual during the act? What are the intentions inside the minds of those people who coordinate the sequence of events which bring acts of death and destruction to others?
The frame of mind of a national military intends to defend of the status quo, and perhaps we witness the occasional acts of brutality when soldiers attempt to maintain the status quo. The frame of mind of the terrorist seeks to accomplish whatever are the political, economic, religious, or national objectives by any means necessary. The terrorist does not care how the goal is to be accomplished, be it rape, murder, theft, and their intention is to accomplish the goal by any means anyone within the group can think of.
The democratic process is second to none, but the democratic process is only a tool people will use to accomplish a goal. Sometimes the democratic process doesn’t leave everyone satisfied. For example, a group of people in the 1940’s established the State of Israel. Some people liked the nation, others did not. Israel exists though, and they will attempt to maintain the status quo with their military. This is the reality of the situation. Those who seek to change this reality with Israel, some people act with peaceful intentions and other people act with deadly intentions. Some people are righteous-minded and feel honor and respect for themselves as they attempt to bring about changes within Israel. Other people are more callous and will without hesitation disrespect the human dignity of others as they attempt to bring changes to and within Israel.
The individuals inside the militaries of any nation only intend to maintain the status quo. The Creator must look more favorably upon the individual who will continue to suffer injustice as opposed to those individuals who will rape, murder, and steal to bring themselves out of the suffering from an injustice.
You’ll bring your own thoughts to be confusing to yourself if you begin defining the word terrorist to be something honorable and justified. Terrorists are not good people. Don’t start lying to yourself and talking to others using words with dissimilar meanings others have of them. There are right ways to do things and then there are wrong ways to do something. People who intend to cause terror inside others to accomplish what they want are not good people.
Your second question, Madmax, on one of the principles: The Greater Good.
With all of the violence we see swirling around us, it becomes difficult to imagine an ideology which would be universal, and common to the whole of humanity. But there is such a thing, what I call An Ideology of Common Sense, which is a belief in the universality of certain principles. It is these priciples which allowed the cavemen to survive for some two million years, and it is these principles which, if implemented, will allow us to continue to survive on this good earth.
Here are the three greatest common sense principles, although there are others?
The Golden Mean, “The truth is somewhere in the middle between two extremes,” would have us think straight by using common sense as our Ideology.
The Golden Rule, “Treat others as you would have them treat you,” would have us treat each other well by investing in one another to create jobs which protect our environment.
The Greatest Rule, “Do what brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number,” would have us maximize justice by organizing ourselves around a Vision of Hope.
Put it all together, as Thomas Jefferson might have done, and the formula for world peace is not too complicated, “We find this truth to be self-evident: Ideology plus Investment equals Hope,” and with hope all things are possible, even the impossible dream of peace.
Esra’a and Mohammad, you bring up some excellent points. Please give me an hour or so and I will respond. I would agree with you that a gap exists, at times, between words, and the ideas behind the words. In fact, there are certain words, like “terrorist,” which are so heavily laden with meaning, that the words themselves can get in the way of the meaning behind the words.
Take for example, the word “God.” That word is so pregnant with meaning, and the meaning is so personal to the speaker, that using that word can often block the path to understanding. The word itself gets in the way of the meaning behind the word. But if you use another description, such as, “The creative energy of the universe,” or “The Big Bang,” then you may still be talking about God, but because you used a different way of describing Him, then you could better get to the meaning of God, without getting people overly excited up by using His name.
The words “terrorist” and “soldier” could similarly be emotional to a great many people, and using such words could evoke emotions which block the path to the search for truth. I don’t disagree with some of your reactions in this regard. My answer, therefore, would be to come back to the big principles, the big pricniples of Common Sense, and to talk to one another using pure ideas, instead of empty labels.
The first statement, Esra’a, is undoubtedly true. I don’t have the statistics, but I would venture to say that more people were killed, by the hand of man, in the last 200 years, than in the previous two million years of human existence.
The second statement could be true in certain instances. There are times when soldiers use terrorism, to accomplish their missions, and there are also instances when terrorists act like soldiers. I think back to Israel, for example, when it could be argued that the Irgun used questionable tactics to drive the British out, but it could also be argued that their cause was just, and that they had no other choice under the circumstances.
Good point, Mohammad. There are instances when we insulate ourselves from the terror that our armies perpetrate by cloaking them with the uniforms and equipment and procedures which give them a sense of legitimacy. On the other hand, the groups we call terrorist organizations do not have the uniforms, or the equipment, or the procedures, and therefore, the things they do, pursuant to their cause, stand naked and bare, for all to see, and for all to condemn. But in many cases, they deserve such condemnation, because their actions do not bespeak the nobility of their cause. And the same could be said, at times, of the military.
Kur, you too have a point. In fact, the more you listen to people, the more you realize that everyone has a point.
There is the act, and there is the intent. In law, the same act is treated differently depending on the intent of the individual. If you kill someone with “malice aforethought,” it is murder. If you kill someone accidentally, it is manslaughter, or something else altogether.
But Kur, is it possible, when it comes to the international scene, that issues of intent could be blurred by the realities on the ground? For example, if a nation seeks to defend itself, but uses terror to do so, is it not still terror? And if a terror oraganization uses military action for a cause that is noble, is it not still a military action? In other words, rather than the labels, should we not be focused instead on what the intent is, and what actions are taken pursuant to the intent, to evaluate the worthiness of the action taken, regardless of who is taking the action?
And so, rather than labels, isn’t it more about a common sense appraisal of what action is taken, and to what end? In other words, it’s about common sense, not labels. Common sense cuts the labels open, and reveals the truth for what it is, and doesn’t much care where the truth takes us.
I think you’re right here, Kur. Israel is the fourth or fifth strongest army in the world, which is backed up by several hundred nuclear weapons. Right or wrong, that is the reality of the situation. The question becomes: Can justice be brought to the Palestinians in light of that reality? And the answer is yes. If Palestinians come to terms with Israel’s existence, forgetting for a moment the equities on both sides, then I believe that justice will come to Palestinians, not by destroying Israel, but by partnering with her to revitalize the Palestinian economy, by bringing freedoms to Palestinians, and by ushering in an age of peace for Palestine. Israel will cooperate and even initaite this, not because she is a saint, but because it is in her best interests. It is time to convert “self-interest” into “mutual self-interest.”
Yes, Kur, you’re right there. But I have to say that this applies to both sides.
We have tried to show that the words “soldier” and “terrorist” don’t always give a true picture of the situation on the ground. There are times when each side lives up to its label. And there are other times when the labels overlap, and when each side acts in ways that imitates the label of the other side.
But you are right when you say that there is right and wrong ways of doing things. What point us in the right direction is Common Sense, not the label.
You wisely talk about what the Creator would approve of. I say that the Creator created this world, and as part of the world, He created us in His image, no less. Therefore, like Him, we too are creators. We can choose to use our God-given Common Sense to bring a sense of order to this world. Or we can ignore what makes sense, and witness the self-destruction we will bring to ourselves with our own hand. The choice is ours. It always has been. And everything we know and love hangs in the balance.
Nissam Dihan wrote:
I suppose the term terroristic soldier is applicable if I were to recognize the perpetrators of the Beslan massacre as soldiers of the Chechen Armed forces. I would then conclude that the leaders of Chechnya and their military will plan military acts to move their troops directly against the school children of their enemy nation, they believing that the tactic of attacking school children would somehow further their political or national objectives.
It is said that during any war involving the military of the United States, the townsfolk were so glad to receive news that the troops fighting nearby and soon to be arriving and throwing their oppressors out would be American troops. American troops would soon be in town and the townspeople did not fear that there would be rapes, murder and thefts from the American soldier. Some soldiers in history have shown themselves to be better than others, and not just at warfare but in peacetime too. And then their have been bad soldiers trained and disciplined by not so good nations … committing atrocities upon the towns and villages they conquer.
If one wishes to label the leaders of the terrorists at Beslan as “soldiers” of a nation, and that the premeditated thoughts to deliberately cause the death of children would in some way serve their military objectives, than this person does not know what a truly good soldier is all about from the bad ones of history. If a person feels proud of their nation and of their leaders knowing that their leaders will plan to deliberately place children in harm’s way to accomplish their objectives, than this person deserves the government it got, I suppose. This type of thinking from a so-called leader is not a virtue to be proud of. The evil inside man has not been put into check, and terrible minds bring once good nations to be wretched and decrepit.
Esra’a needs to make a distinction between truly good soldiers and bad ones, clarifying the distinction through the acts and examples in the books of history that will take years to read through and discover.
… and Nissim, this was an interesting post.
Good line, Kur.
How do we expell and contain the evil that is within us? That is the ultimate challenge. That is the experiment that is being conducted on this satellite we call earth. The forces of good and evil are closely matched. They had to be for the potential for meaning to be realized. It had to be made hard, to make a difference.
Beslan is an indication that we may well fail in our efforts to purge the evil from within us. But there is always hope. And if we can somehow organize ourselves around a Vision of Hope, we may be able to tip the balance in favor of what is good, in favor of what makes sense, in favor of what will fill our otherwise empty lives with meaning.
That is the challenge that stands before us. If we can somehow meet that challenge, then we will find favor in God’s eyes, for only then will He truly know that His work was indeed good.
A “soldier”, by definition, is a ‘uniformed’ member of an organized army or militia governed by a nation state. He/she is subject to a code of conduct and can/will be tried for excesses (war crimes).
The Nation State status governs rules of land warfare as it applies to international law and treaties.
Non uniformed non affiliated fighters are defined differently.
Terrorists use terror as a primary means of influencing tactical/strategic goals.
A terrorist walks into a Pizza parlor and detonates his/her suicide device to kill all of the civilians (after a fatwa stating everyone in that enemy nation is a ’soldier’ wether child, woman or man).
A terrorist cuts the head off of a bound man while being filmed while screaming God is Great.
A terrorist kills the other Muslim sect (Sunni or Shia) in an attempt to create civil war (preferably during a religious event/procession) thru mass murder.
They are not an interchangeable entity.
patb, let me state at the outset that I abhor violence of all kinds, and I hope that one day we will evolve beyond that.
Having said that, the distinctions that you are describing are the conventional ways of thinking about military organizations and terrorist organizations. And in most instances, these distinctions do hold water.
However, there are times, and I’m sure you’ll agree, when these distinctions are blurred, and can become vague. There are times, when the military uses terror to accomplish its mission, and there are also times, when terrorist organizations use military means to further their goal.
Examples. The Beslan fiasco was supposedly a military action, but ended up killing hundreds of school children. Israel’s Irgun, on the other hand, used non-conventional means to further military operations. Some people called them terrorists, but they were disciplined, did not go after women and children, but used non-military tactics to accomplish military objectives.
Why is it important, patb, to make the point that labels are not always accurate? Because we want people to begin seeing things the way they are, and not to lump groups of people together with labels that don’t always apply to them.
As part of a universal ideology, what I call an Ideology of Common Sense, you have to look at the facts on the ground, and assess the situation based on the merits of the case at hand. Using that type of analysis, there could be instances when the military is acting out of bounds, and is leaning toward terror. And there could even be instances when the terrorists are acting within the bounds of normal military conventions, even though they don’t wear uniforms, and are not equipped well.
To the extent that we can escape the constraints of labels, then to that extent we can begin to see things the way they are, free of labels, and based on their own merits. That would be a first step in developing a worldview based on universal principles of common sense. And if you could do that, then you’re well on your way to reaching ideological consensus, which could lead to global cooperation, global investment, global protection of the environment, and eventually, peace.
Nissim,
I agree that the distinctions can blur but that normally occurs when a uniformed soldier commits a crime, and is, hopefully, tried and held accountable.
Who holds terrorists accountable for anything, not their chain of command, not their treaties (non existant) nor international law that they do not recognise.
I too wish that violence would evaporate but until it does the only control we have over the madness that is war is oversight and international law as it pertains to conflict.
This is required to protect the noncombatants, the wounded, the captured and detained.
If an enemy combatant (terrorist) attacks a military target and attempts to minimize colateral damage that is simply an enemy attack and not terrorism. If this were the norm we would not be calling them terrorists but guerillas. They are termed terrorists because they often attack purely civilian targets to create ‘terror’ to undermine the local Govt (market place bombs). Because they routinely kill captives indescriminatley (mass graves of bound victims), or slaughter them on video for psyop reasons, let large elements of the population starve to death for political reasons (Somalia), practice Genocide (Darfur) or for sundry other reasons.
I think you will find that moral equivalency in all things just does not work if we are dealing with the finite and not just waxing poetic.
You make some valid points, patb.
It is true, as you suggest, that there are more structures in place to keep military action in check. And it is also true that terrorists, on the whole, do not subscribe to such oversight.
But I think that it is also true, as Esra’a suggests, that far more “terrorism” has been perpetrated by military organizations than by terrorist organizations. But of course this could be explained by the fact that there are far greater numbers of soldiers than terrorists, and therefore far greater chance for soldiers to go astray, or to act in ways unbecoming.
I am not suggesting, patb, that there is “moral equivalency in all things.” I am simply making the point that labels may be handy, but are not always accurate in describing things the way they are. I am suspicious of labels, because they allow people not to think, and encourage them to draw conclusions based on the label itself, rather than putting in the work to look at the facts, and drawing conclusions based on the merits of the situation at hand.
The things that terrorists do pursuant to their cause disgusts me, and in my opinion, undermines the cause that they claim to believe in. But so too with military action that uses terror to accomplish its mission. We don’t have to look far. Look what’s happening in Georgia as we speak.
Ulitimately, in answering your initial question; Who holds terrorists accountable for anything? my answer would be that it is up to the people on the street to hold them accountable. We have seen that there is just so much the military people can do to hold the terrorists in check. Ultimately it is up the the people to make their will known, and to marginalize the extremists when the extremists no longer reflect the will or the aspirations of the people.
For the people on the street to be able to assert themselves in this way they will have to move beyond the use of labels. They will have to learn to assess what is indeed in their best interests, and they will have to be empowered to make their will known in the most forceful way possible. The fate of the extremists is ultimately in the hands of the people, because only the people have the power to marginalize them.
In order to empower the man on the street, you will have to sell him on a Vision of Hope, using: An Ideology of Common Sense, Investment to create jobs which protect the environment, Ideology and Investment to inspire Hope, some serious Public Diplomacy, and the willingness to Fight against the forces of extremism. If you do these things, you will give the man on the street his voice. The extremists will not be able to capture the public’s imagination, once people begin to imagine a better life for themselves. The West and moderate Arab nations are well advised to put that option on the table.
“Ulitimately, in answering your initial question; Who holds terrorists accountable for anything? my answer would be that it is up to the people on the street to hold them accountable. We have seen that there is just so much the military people can do to hold the terrorists in check. Ultimately it is up the the people to make their will known, and to marginalize the extremists when the extremists no longer reflect the will or the aspirations of the people.”
Interesting point and observation and that is what has happened in Iraq with the military civilian coalitions against Al Qaeda. The AQ terrs killed so many Iraqi’s (murdered en masse in bombings and individual kidnappings/murders) that the local tribe leaders decided to fight against them with US support. However, without US support and the new Iraqi Army the people on the street would still be hostage to a stronger armed group.
Now, sadly, the only way to “enforce oversight” on terrorists is to kill them so we are back to square one on ‘why violence exists’.
Nissim, I’ve been a soldier all of my life and I hate violence, I’m quiet and peaceful and do my best to disarm arguments etc. as I’ve come to love harmony but, I understand violence and those with a violent nature. If you are waiting for violent individuals or international issues to disipate I’d say wish for that but prepare for the reality. If you do not then you and yours will pay a heavy, heavy toll.
Democratic choice? Hahaha, please don’t make me laugh. I didnt’have anything to say about the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. And what is evil? Apart from some stupid religious concept. War = killing, murder. Nothing justifies it (including religion).
patb, first of all, thank you for your service to our country. You seem like a very good soldier.
I agree that the tribal leaders’ decision in Anbar Province to push back against Al Qaeda is an example of the people making their will known. I also agree that they needed military help to accomplish this. And I believe that wishful thinking is not enough when you’re facing a violent, extremists, enemy.
However, even though a military presence is indispensable to the quest for peace, by itself, it is not enough. What is needed is a multi-faced approach. What we have to do, strange as it may seem, is to co-opt some of the strategies of the extremists, and to beat them at their own game. We have to do what they do, only better.
If the extremists are ideological about violent Jihad, we should be ideological aout Common Sense. If the extremists invest peanuts in charitable handouts, we should invest some serious dollars in jobs, jobs which protect the environment, jobs which help to neutralize extremists thinking. If the extremists sell a vision of hope for martyrdom, or paradise, or virgins; we should sell a Vision of Hope for Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom. If the extremists inculcate hate in the hearts and minds of their people; we should inspire a sense of hope with some heavy duty Public Diplomcay. And if the extremists use terror; we should fight back with a military campaign, but also position the fight within a Vision of Hope. We should raise the fight on the ground to a higher moral plain by giving the fight a moral clarity of purpose. People will fight harder once they know what they’re fighting for. We’re not fighting a “war against terror.” We’re fighting a war to realize a Vision of Hope. There’s a big difference.
At every turn, we will cut the extremists off at the pass and beat them at their own game. The ideological extremists will not be able to capture the public’s imagination once people begin to imagine a better life for themselves.
So you see, patb, I’m not exactly naive about the threat we face. I just think we need a more comprehensive and sophisticated appproach.
And Wladimir, I think it was Churchill who said that, “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all others.” It’s not that democracy is perfect. It’s just that democracy is a way of empowering the man on the street because it is thought that his common sense is indispensable to a healthy functioning of government.
And as to evil, you don’t have to be religious to know what evil is. Evil is what doesn’t work in ordering the affairs of men. Good is what does work. If we believe in treating others as we want to be treated, in bringing the greatest happiness to the greatest number, and in thinking with moderation instead of extremism, then evil is what prevents from doing this, and good is what allows us to do this.
As to war, yes it is a bad thing. But it is sometimes necessary to accomplish a greater good. I wish the day would come when this is no longer the case. When people will simply understand good and evil, and act accordingly without resorting to violence. Until that day comes, we will have to do as best we can, even as we stumble along the way.
Nissim,
Military force is never enough to conclude a just peace nor should it ever be thought so. Securing a ‘peace’ means a great deal of follow thru to build a foundation for prosperity and hope.
A great example would be the Marshal plan for Europe after WW2.
The world is a smaller place nowadays and that is a good thing, much good can come from interaction as long as it is tempered with respect.
Contrary opinions without an attitude of respect can lead to more of the same old violence (familiarity can breed contempt)…. so freedom to speak, to think, to act must be taken with grave responsibility and not the flippant attitude of dismissal we so often see.
We must practice listening twofold to the act of speaking.
You, as I’ve seen (read) in many young people here, have a goodness within that seeks expression.
As you age remember the strong feelings you have now as they will transform with experience and exposure to a more complex place but one still rooted in a positive outlook I think.
Well, patb, I know that this website is for mideast “youth,” but I’m about to turn 56, so I guess that makes me part of the old fart committee. But I guess you’re never too old to learn.
I like that idea. If the world is really getting smaller technologically and economically, we’ll make it a lot easier on ourselves if we can find a way to becaome smaller ideologically as well. Listening to one another, and speaking with one another, instead of talking at one another, is a good way to make that happen.
Selling a Vision of Hope has 5 elements to it, but An Ideology of Common Sense is probably the most important. Instead of believing what we want to believe, it may well be time to start believing in what makes sense. We owe it to ourselves to sceen all belief throught the filter of common sense. If something makes sense to you, keep believing in it. If it doesn’t, then let it go.
You mention the Marshall Plan, by which we invested in the nations we defeated in World War II. Some people ask me, “Why don’t you hold up the investment, till after we defeat the extremists militarily?” My resonponse is that this sitation is different.
In World War II you were fighting for territory, against conventional armies. In this new struggle, you’re fighting against a dispersed enemy, and you’re fighting for hears and minds, as opposed to territory. Therefore, you may well have to invest to create jobs, even as you fight the enemy militarily.
Because we have to fight, we also have to invest. And because we have to invest, we also have to fight. We will fight with both our “arrows” and our “olive branches” as depicted on the Presidential Seal. The willingness to invest will give the fight a good measure of credibility, and will help us win over the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims, which will inturn help us to win militarily as well.
Much of this discussion seems to be centered around who is doing the labeling – who is named a “terrorist” or “solider” depends on who assigned the name. Sure, that line is blurred depending on perspective, but there’s no such thing as a “soldist” or a “terrdier.” In the end, every example listed on this post has to be one or the other – it can’t be both. So who does the deciding?
I doubt that any terrorist would actually label themselves a terrorist, even if almost every other single person in the world would consider their actions terrorism. Everyone who engages in this believes their cause is just, but of course, not all causes are just – hence the seperation between the two words. Therefore, there has to be a set of accepted standards that diferentiates between the two.
If you can’t leave the definition decision up to the terrorist or the soldier/government, because both are not objective, only the general public is left. That is why leaving the distinction up to a democracy is, as Nissim qouted in Churchill, not a perfect solution but the only one. So, we are back to where we started – a representational body does the defining as to what is OK and what is not OK.
These standards are defined within international laws and conventions, and in the just war theory, which is purported by the United Nations. Again, not a perfect system, but it seems to be the best man has come up with as of yet. The question then becomes – as humans evolve and figure out more and more ways to kill each other, should these definitions evolve? And are reciprocative actions allowable? What is truly considered a “proportional” response, given the weight of the collateral? Ultimately, these decisions are still up to “the decider.” Of course there’s a gray area, but decisions need to be made based on the black, the white, and the gray. No decisions on tough issues would mean no action, and no action means more choas than we have now.
Nissim, I have to say, I loved 99% of your answers on this post, but when you claimed that man has killed more fellow man in the past 200 years than ever before, I thought it was silly. Painting current man as inherently more violent than previous man is simply misleading and unfair. I know you said you have no statistics to back it up, but population growth needs to be taken into account here. As the world’s population continues to grow, there will continue to be higher rates of deaths due to terror, war, ect at higher rates simply because there are more people to kill. In order for your comparison to be accurate, you’d have to add a caveat of proportional representation via percentage, and for that I really doubt your statistic holds up – especially given rampant disease, natural death, ect.
Churchill was also a fascist who bombed Kurds in Iraq and didn’t have problem with murder. Murdering for your country. How nice. Next.
Nissim,
I dont really want to see if there is any logical or conceptional mistakes in this argument (conversation). I did really enjoyed of. That was great and it seems as once Chris de Burgh said “There is only greed and evil in the man who fight today; the song of crusader has long since gone away!”
It dosent matter if you’re on this side or that side.
As usual, Jessica, some very insightful comments.
You question my assertion that more people have been killed by the hand of man in the past 200 years, than in the previous 2,000,000 years of human existence.
You may well be right, but let me share with you some of my thinking:
1. We have been around as a species for some 2,000,000.
2. We were hunter/gatherers for about 99% of that time, and only became “civilized” approximately 10,000 years ago with the advent of agriculture and small villages.
3. As hunter/gatherers, it would not have made sense to kill one another. Would you have killed your neighbor just to steal a couple of peanuts? Why bother?
We were actually guite gentle with one another, strange as it may seem, and this is born out by a documentary I saw, The Rise of Man, on The Discovery Channel. Anthropologists from all over the world were interviewed, and confirmed what I just said. And Jessica, wouldn’t it make sense that in order to survive for 2,000,000 years we would have to treat each other well, especially considering the hardships involved in survival? Wouldn’t common sense tell us to be kind to one another, and help each other out?
4. For the last 10,000 years, since “civilization” began, there has been the incentive to kill and steal, so that we could easily take from others what we wanted for ourselves.
5. Now, as to the numbers. Gunnar Heinsohn has documented that since 1950, some 85,000,000 people have been killed in bloody conflicts around the world.
6. If we add in: World War I, World War II, Taiping Rebellion, Russian Civil War, Napoleonic Wars, and Shaka’s conquests, we come up with another 140,000,000 which brings us to a grand total of 225,000,000
7. Oh, but we must not forget all the sundry killings by way of crime and even suicide. They count as well.
8. Now, it is true, Jessica, that man has always had a taste for blood since becomming “civilized.” For example, some 33,000,000 people were knocked off in China in the An Shi Rebellion. And the Mongol Conquests were a real treat with 45,000,000 deaths. But most of the other conflicts were less deadly by comparison. We are not counting death by disease or natural disasters.
So once again, Jessica, I don’t have the statistics. It is possible, in fact, that no one does. But I don’t think I’m too far off in saying that more people were killed by the hand of man in the last 200 years, than in the previous 2,000,000 years of human existence.
I am not talking about the number of deaths in proportion to population. I am simply talking about the number of deaths in absolute terms, because I beleive that each killing is an absolute loss.
Why is any of this important, Jessica? You know, they say that “Hisory is prologue.” If it is true that recent history is becoming more and more violent, and if it is true that technological advances are outpacing wisdom, and if it is true that we will soon be able and inclined to annihilate one another, then isn’t it time to stop, and take stock of where the hell we’re going?
My sense is, Jessica, that God, in His wisdom, put us on this earth to live, not to kill, and not to die before our time. That common sense approach was in place for some 2,000,000 of human existence. Life was not easy for the cavemen, and was often cut brutally short, but we kept going as a species by taking it easy with one another. It may well be time now, before time runs out, to go back to that logic, to invest in one another, instead of trying to outdo one another, to protect the environment, instead of raping the environment, and to follow the pattern that was set in place a long time ago, by a Power that was and is way beyond our own.
And Wladimir, there are fascists and there are fascists. You call Churchill a fascist, but would you really have preferred the Hitler variety? If the answer is yes, then I question your judgment. If the answer is no, then you can see for yourself why it is sometimes necessary to fight a war, and to kill for a cause you believe in.
Lord Kavi, I’m not sure that the crusaders did all that much singin, since they were busy killin, but I certainly appreciate your kind words of encouragement.
Whenever I read one of these articles which equivalates soldiers and terrorists, I cannot help but think to myself: what would happen if we actually called everyone’s bluff?
Remove the checkpoints,
Go back to the 67 borders,
End the occupation and…
Adopt a policy of perfectly proportional response.
As in, if a Palestinian blows up one of a bus, a pizza parlour, a supermarket or an open market we respond…in exactly the same way. The same size bomb, the same makeup of bomb and the same target. Lob a rocket at Sderot hoping to hit a random house? No problem–we can do the same! Forget about trying to locate the people responsible. Go straight for the civilians.
Of course, the civilian casualty count would go up and the casualty count among those actually perpetrating the violence would go way down. But at least we would be able to avoid “collateral damage”.
Gila, even though I say some things to the contrary, I’m not really suggesting that soldiers and terrorists are the same. You’ll notice that the first sentence states that we know in our gut that terrorism is wrong.
For the most part, I happen to respect the military, and find most of what they do to be necessary and morally justifiable. And I am fundamentally opposed to terrorism, the intentional killing of civilians for political gain. However, I think you would agree that there are many instances when military operations contain elements of terror. There are also many instances when military planers know full well that innocent civilians will be maimed or killed, but they go ahead with the operations anyway.
When innocent civilians get killed in military operations, the leadership could say that this was morally justified in the name of self-defense. That type of logic, in my opinion, comes perilously close to the rationale used by terrorists. They could also say that the killing of innocent civilians could be justified as self-defense, and as pursuant to a cause they hold more precious than life itself.
What I am saying, is that we should not feel too comfortable hiding behind labels. Terror is terror. Just because we call it a “military operation,” does not mean that it is not terrorism. When people are terrorized, it is terror, no matter who the players are.
By looking at things the way they are, it may humble us, and may inspire us to see beyond the labels, and beyond the rationales, in search of a solution that will bring justice, as opposed to explanations that makes us feel better about the things we are compelled to do. I believe in seeing things the way they are, because I think we can no longer afford the excuses and rationales we comfort ourselves with.