State Militarism vs Individual Terrorism

[jimmoyer]

Now we're getting into the Moral Equality issue
of equating State Militarism with Individual Terrorism.

Individual Terrorism, more than State Militarism has
the promise of killing us all, for many reasons that
elude the zeitgeist of thinking on this subject.

Ultimately the power politics of the State is run
by people who have something to lose, whereas the individual
set loose by a manipulative predator has nothing to lose.

It appears that asymetrical warfare makes intelligent people
conclude there is a parity between a soldier and a suicide
bomber.

 

[Jersay]

Then how do you explain some nations like Zimbabewae or Iran.

 

[Finder]

Iran is caught up into idealogical/theological fanatism and dogma, as an emerging power and a nation which has been predicted to become one of the next superpowers (but still a long shoot), Iran is actually just getting the ability to really challenge the region it's in. Being powerful enough to take on any regional power around it while also strong enough to possibly keep out any intentionalists as well. It also has some economic power with oil which is not guaranteed to last forever and thus Iran may be an emerging super power and currently a regional power but is it really sustainable in the long run. I think it is no and they possibly do as well. With theology and the fanatism of the state structure it is easy to see they may think this is there one moment to be strong and they need to take this moment and use it while they can. So perhaps this is the moment they rattle there sabres and act like mad men or bullies. Anyhow just a theory... a thought.... could be wrong.

 

[jimmoyer]

Individual Terrorism, more than State Militarism has
the promise of killing us all, for many reasons that
elude the zeitgeist of thinking on this subject.

 

[darkbeaver]

Individual Terrorism, more than State Militarism has
the promise of killing us all, for many reasons that
elude the zeitgeist of thinking on this subject.

State militarism employs individual terrorism on industrial scales. You keep the question alive Jim when success for the empire demanded that it never be asked. The fate of the enterprise was sealed when the question spewed from his mouth.There aren't enough prisons on the planet to stop that fatal examination of that dangerous question.:smile:

 

[Logic 7]

Now we're getting into the Moral Equality issue
of equating State Militarism with Individual Terrorism.

Individual Terrorism, more than State Militarism has
the promise of killing us all, for many reasons that
elude the zeitgeist of thinking on this subject.

Ultimately the power politics of the State is run
by people who have something to lose, whereas the individual
set loose by a manipulative predator has nothing to lose.

It appears that asymetrical warfare makes intelligent people
conclude there is a parity between a soldier and a suicide
bomber.

Individual terrorism doesnt have the promise to kill us all,it doesnt even make sense,of course you want us to believe that, when in fact state militarism has done way more damage to the world than anything else, just think of what USA has done, there is 733 us military base in 133 countries, from my point of view, it is a big threath.More than Half of the weapons dealers are from United states and Israel, would their be their advantage, if peace was all over the world? nope , not at all, that is a very sad fact you can't denied.

 

[jimmoyer]

Individual terrorism doesnt have the promise to kill us all,it doesnt even make sense,of course you want us to believe that, when in fact state militarism has done way more damage to the world than anything else, ...
---------------------------------------Logic7-------------------------------------------------------

This is not unique thinking on your part. A lot of people think the same way as you do.

Why Individual terrorism poses a greater threat than State Terrorism is because of
technology in one person's hands.

STill you think that might be the same ?

Nope.

A state has an apparatus where no decision is made in a vacuum nor if a decision is made
does it not go through a vetting process on down the chain of command by those who
must carry it out. Then you have other branches of government or the bureaucracy
or the press horns into the matter having a say.

Ukraine's Orange revolution would not have ocurred without the disloyalty of some
members of its military and secret agencies stopping the top leader's attempt
to prevent the revolution.

In individual terrrorism there are no such checks, no such process.
This is all vertically integretated
and isolated in one person when speaking of Individual Terrorism.
He has to speak to no one to carry it off. No permission or authority is needed from anyone else.

This is a huge difference, as a future major disastor will occur to prove this danger
is far greater.

And more importantly damn near UN-PREVENTABLE. No one can defend against
such an anarchic lone man terrorist.

 

[AndyF]

jimmoyer:

There is an equality, we just don't wish to recognize it.

There is no distinction between the state and the individual in the decision making process. The two entities both have free will, can ponder a situation,carry out actions, and have form both recognized by society,individuals and God, and have a conscience.

The issue is then how to react to their actions. Individuals are obviously conveniently packaged to be rediculed and opinioned, regardless if they do good or evil. His ideas are formulated in one mind. Suggestions for punitive measures always take advantage of his unital form.

Collectives on the other hand get a break as far as punitive measures are concerned, which is judicially strange has there are more minds to ponder the goodness of the act, are more determined in their decision(evidence decrees). Justice's reluctance to handle it in a fair manner has more to do with squemishness than consideration of a fair method of punishment. Man has no such restrictions that can be applied. Successes of collectives are huge fanfair events with ticker tape parades and social celebration. Failures are dispersed to the citizens for absorption, and it is hoped that history will be kind and bury the deed. The entity collective occasionally invokes the assistance from God, thereby promising to abide by Devine rule. This doesn't need to be this way of course, and this approach to handling social crime will always weigh in favor of the individual.

No longer will mild mannered Mrs. Edwards escape the benefit of seeing a race go to extinction while she sits back and knits on her couch while her KKK bretheren do her bidding. She has bound herself to the group by contract knowing full well what their cause is. She has joined the form has a unit in one with the collective making part of the whole.

My point is you need to go deeper. If we are donning our court wigs in fairness, let's be completely fair and judge entities in the form they have freely chosen to act, no absorption to individual units.

Gotta go.

AndyF

 

[jimmoyer]

AndyF, your post totally ignores the biggest difference between individual terrorism
and state terrorism.

That is the process.

Let's put aside the enormous issue of which does greater harm for the moment.

For the purpose of understanding each other better, let us consider the one major difference:

The process of vetting an action in the State whether by a dictator or President
often requires the input and action of others to carry out the order.

At each step of this process the matter can break down, either by incompetence, disloyalty,
or by objection.

In an individual this process is all vertically integrated into only one person who
needs no one else to carry out his plan.

Big difference.

And impossible to defend against.

This point cannot be under-emphasized, because it is why al Qaeda knew
that de-centralizing is the key to winning in asymetrical warfare.
It is why al Qaeda knows the power of just one LONE INDIVIDUAL can rarely
be stopped by the State.

Each cell or individual is on their own, vetting their own plan, their own decision
without requiring permission of others.

The lone assassin is even more scary and always more successful.

 

[AndyF]

jimmoyer:

The moral being that if you destroy a nation where the ideology is sound, you are left with individuals who become mini-nations unto themselves in order to carry on that ideology. The molotov throwing ragged dirty person filmed on Frontline cannot surely be: a/a soldier b/have a righteous moral reason for his action c/be represenative of anything. Therefore he must be a "terrorist", or your choice "assasin".

Each cell or individual is on their own, vetting their own plan, their own decision without requiring permission of others.
The lone assassin is even more scary and always more successful.

Of course, and Bush will learn this in decades to come. Only after a long study of cause and effect, misinformation aside, an unbiased study of why he does what he does do we assign anything. WE NEED TO LISTEN TO HIS PROBLEM. We in the West, whether we like it or not are conditioned in some way. We are influenced. We need to strip all that from us and study the whole hostility from the beginning, not from some point in time in the violence where we are assured the situation favored our desired view.

What do we expect? We declare war, they don't. We go in, kick their door down, kill their kid, kill most of the bread winners, congress gets bored, the pentagon got their new weapons tested under battlefield conditions(reason 13),funding stops, the troops come home, headlines say "The war is over", and their supposed to go on with their lives like nothing happened?

Your really seeing ideals in actions, not people, the body becomes simply the vehicle to carry it out. To fight that we need to set examples for our own behaviour,not be so overly self confident that fancy arms will save us,listen carefully, be charitable and simply be a good friend.

A prime example it is? During a hyjacking of an airliner years ago, an american passenger was angry at the hyjacker. He told her that american funding killed his entire family, and he had nothing to live for but decided he wasn't going alone. She called him a coward. He gave his pistol to the passenger and told her to shoot, he yelled at her to do it. She did nothing, he took it back. Same ideal, a colonialist soldier in pre-independance US. Ideals and principles, it's all about that.

AndyF

 

[jimmoyer]

A prime example it is? During a hyjacking of an airliner years ago, an american passenger was angry at the hyjacker. He told her that american funding killed his entire family, and he had nothing to live for but decided he wasn't going alone. She called him a coward. He gave his pistol to the passenger and told her to shoot, he yelled at her to do it. She did nothing, he took it back. Same ideal, a colonialist soldier in pre-independance US. Ideals and principles, it's all about that.
------------------------------------------AndyF---------------------------------------------
You take the fashionable modern point of view, equating colonial independence fighters with the suicide killers of today.

But that woman on the plane is still right calling that clown a coward.

Good for her.

I hope you have the wisdom to see she was right.

Let's take a few examples. Much of the victim psychology is like still blaming your Parents for how miserable your life still is.

At some point it is no longer THEIR responsibility. It is YOUR responsibility.

No doubt all these complaints, are correct, accurate.

But you owe it to yourself not to be imprisoned by your negative world view. You owe it to yourself to break free of this righteous negativity.

We honor those who rise above their adversity.

Don't we ?

Wonder why ?