July 20, 2004

Not That I Wanted Him Beheaded

by PG

But I have to say that the release of truck driver Angelo de la Cruz, the Filipino hostage held pending the withdrawal of his country's forces from Iraq, sort of upsets my assumptions about the insurgents. I figured that if Manila acceded to their demands, they would just kill Cruz anyway. I had thought the same about Egyptian truck driver Muhammad al-Gharabawi, whose captors threatened to behead him unless his Saudi employer pulled out of Iraq. But when the company complied, the hostage was released.

Actually following through on their promises makes the insurgents a more difficult opponent for the Iraqi government and coalition forces to surmount, because now the insurgents have the status of quasi-reasonable people. Obviously, kidnapping truck drivers is not really a fair tactic to use in the pursuit of one's goals, but apparently it is having some success for those who wish to undermine the new government.

July 20, 2004 01:47 PM | TrackBack
Comments

Well, although we like to paint all terrorists with the same brush as Ted Kaczynski, the chances are most of them are relatively normal people who just have drastically different values than we do. Most of them are just participating in an especially repugnant form of politics. This is not to defend their actions, but a call to reconsider their motivations.

Even if they are a bit crazy, it doesn't take much sanity to realize that if you don't hold up your side of a deal, people will quickly stop negotiating with you. If they had killed either of those truckers, they would almost guarantee that no government would ever give into their demands, since the results of complying would be the same as not complying.

Posted by: PoliticoMonkey at July 20, 2004 02:57 PM

"Relatively normal people" did you say? Relative to what? To all the other sword wielding fanatics who cut off people's heads from the back of the neck so the vocal chords remain intact longer and then we all can hear the screaming?

Posted by: dggpa at July 20, 2004 08:45 PM

Re: dggpa

Relative to the lunatics that most people, including you tend to make them out to be. These are not people with some sort of chemical imbalance. I'm sure that most terrorists do not think that their neighbors dog is telling them to kill the infidels or who have to touch their doorknob 10 times before they go out, they are normal people who have very different goals than we do and a much stronger belief in Real Politick than most.

There is a bit of religious fanaticism going on, but Islam hardly has the market religious fanaticism. Remember, Jerry Falwell, one of Bush's biggest supporters claimed 9/11 happened because God was upset at our acceptance of gays and single mothers and one of our top generals was quoted as saying that we will win the war on terrorism because our God is bigger than our God.

As for beheading off heads, if your goal is to scare people out of coming into Iraq, which is more efficient, beheadings or lethal injection? On a side note, I'm pretty sure cutting from the back is a preferable way to die, because it cuts the spinal chord rather than letting you bleed out while they work their way to the back.

This is not an attempt at moral relativism. I'm not suggesting that we should accept the terrorists goals and values as equivalent to our own. All I am trying to say is that these people are not irrational monsters who kill for the sheer pleasure of killing; they are normal people who happen to think that killing innocent civilians is an acceptable means of accomplishing a goal.

Posted by: PoliticoMonkey at July 20, 2004 09:47 PM

All I am trying to say is that these people are not irrational monsters who kill for the sheer pleasure of killing; they are normal people who happen to think that killing innocent civilians is an acceptable means of accomplishing a goal.

In other words, they are rational monsters. There is absolutely nothing that says evil must be irrational. Quite the opposite.

Whilst what you've written isn't moral relativism, your comparisons fail to capture the differences between one brand of fanaticism--the kind that holds a knife to a throat--and another which may make overly grand statements about the nature of God.

The danger with calling them 'relatively normal people' merely 'participating in an especially repugnant form of politics' is that it gives insufficient moral condemnation to their actions. This, in turn, raises the risk that we decide to being 'repugnant' whilst retaining our normalcy.

The Romans had a fairly reasonable way of quelling such insurgencies, and as I recall practiced it in Judea: it was called decimation, and involved killing every tenth person in the target group every time there was some small rebellion. We could always choose to engage in the same, as it would be rational and indeed likely effective. Nonetheless, I'd hate to condemn such an action as merely a 'repugnant' style of politics.

Posted by: A. Rickey at July 21, 2004 01:56 AM

RE: A. Rickey

In other words, they are rational monsters. There is absolutely nothing that says evil must be irrational. Quite the opposite.
I suppose its a matter of what we mean by "monster." You seem to be using the term monster to describe people with repugnant moral codes. When I use the term "monster" I am talking about someone beyond just having a nasty moral code. I would use it to describe someone who can't even be compared to a normal human. John Wayne Gacey was a monster. He got off raping and killing young boys in his basement for no reason beyond his personal enjoyment. This is not the same as OBL, he kills people in an attempt to get the world to conform to his will. The primary difference is means vs. end.

Whilst what you've written isn't moral relativism, your comparisons fail to capture the differences between one brand of fanaticism--the kind that holds a knife to a throat--and another which may make overly grand statements about the nature of God.
I'm assuming you are talking about my comments about Falwell. I wasn't trying to suggest that he was as bad as the terrorists. I was using it to head off any comparisons between the 72 virgins and a talking dog.

The danger with calling them 'relatively normal people' merely 'participating in an especially repugnant form of politics' is that it gives insufficient moral condemnation to their actions. This, in turn, raises the risk that we decide to being 'repugnant' whilst retaining our normalcy.
No I fully condemn their actions. Flying planes into a building is very bad. Cutting of the heads of truckers is very bad. The people on the other hand are just the result of their situation. My guess is that if you switched your average American with your average Saudi at birth, the American, subjected to a twisted society that teaches that that Americans are evil and need to be killed would have just as much of a chance of growing up to be a terrorist as anyone else in that society.

The Romans had a fairly reasonable way of quelling such insurgencies, and as I recall practiced it in Judea: it was called decimation, and involved killing every tenth person in the target group every time there was some small rebellion. We could always choose to engage in the same, as it would be rational and indeed likely effective. Nonetheless, I'd hate to condemn such an action as merely a 'repugnant' style of politics.
This doesn't make the Romans into monsters, it just means that they put a lower value on human life than we do. This doesn't mean that decimation wasn't very bad, it just means that we can still compare the actions of a Roman to a normal person.

Posted by: PoliticoMonkey at July 21, 2004 02:56 AM
Sitting in Review
Armen (e-mail) #
PG (e-mail) #
Craig Konnoth (e-mail) #
About Us
Senior Status