What is x?

[oi_antz]

In reference to an excerpt of "The innocence of Muslims":

This was a particular dialogue in the film that stood out to me:

Man + x = terrorist.
Terrorist - x = Man.

What is x?

A question that I don't mind asking.

Notice here that not all terrorists are Muslim, and not all Muslims are terrorists. But there is a certain characteristic of a terrorist that can be reduced to an observable element.

I think x is contention. Contention can be observed in the religious and non-religious, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist or whoever.

But, I still don't understand what it is or what causes it, and why some people seem to be a catalyst for disaster.

Anyone?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think x is contention.

How are you defining contention? Why contention? Is it only contention?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Booko]

Other terms that might apply include self-righteousness (a form of egotism) or lack of compassion.

People can be contentious but if they're egos don't get in the way and they don't forget the people involved are all fellow humans, it doesn't seem to lead to violence.

So I'm likewise interested to hear more from the OP about what you mean by contention.

One of the quotes from my religious writings is "The shining spark of truth cometh forth from the clash of opposing opinions."

I often joke it's interesting that Abdu'l-Baha said "clash" and not "the murmuring of not-really-felt assent".

I've been party to some really contentious consultations as a Baha'i. I mean really REALLY contentious -- like we had to pull a couple of people apart lest they take to blows. And yet at the end of the day everyone realized that everyone in the room is human and we're all dedicated to a unified purpose and it's not about our individual egos, so it didn't ultimately turn into a horrid mess of hurt feelings, blame, or God forbid -- violence.

 

[oi_antz]

How are you defining contention? Why contention? Is it only contention?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Don't take offense to it Mark, I am only throwing ideas around. What are your thoughts on x? I have been thinking about it more today and discussing it with a friend of mine. I have so far reduced x to this statement:

Something triggers a person to get angry at their neighbor, and then an abuse of theology empowers them to act upon it."

..while my friend reduced it to this statement:

All terrorists are motivated by a belief of Separation. And most religions support that belief.

So my question today is "Are all terrorist's motivated by religious belief?". Hopefully someone can give us an example nullifying that theory so we can reduce it a bit more.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Although such complex issues cannot be simplified to the point where you could reduce it to a simple equation involving a single "x", my suggestion would be:

Fanaticism.

The one thing that makes atrocities possible is unwavering belief in a certain ideology, to the point where your most basic empathic and social instincts take a back seat in favour of The Idea.

You need to get to the point where you do not perceive those who disagree with you as full-fledged human beings any longer. It does not even have to inhibit your empathy altogether: unlike solitary mass murderers, those who are utterly committed servants of a specific ideology need not even be defective in terms of general empathy, or believe that they (as individuals) are above all others.
They just need to believe that the targets of their violence are Enemies, not people. Puppets of evil, not ordinary folks going about their own business. Collateral damage in the Good Fight, necessary to achieve The Idea - not innocent victims.


This unwavering conviction - not necessarily in their own righteousness, but in the overarching, positive purpose of The Idea, is what ties them all together, theists and non-theists alike.

It's what allowed the crusaders to wade knee-deep through the blood of slaughtered "unbelievers".
It's what allowed the French revolutionaries to keep the guillotines going all day long.
It's what made the commander of Auschwitz watch dispassionately as children were herded towards the gas chambers, even though he could sob in awkward misery over the death of a pet dog.

Pol Pot's murder squads, Pinochet's brigades, Islamist suicide bombers: the one thing they all have in common is conviction, and the resulting ability to conceive of people as distinctly "Other".

(By the way, the same principle needs to be at work in soldiers, or else they end up being deeply traumatized by the deaths they've caused - especially if those involved civilian casualties.)

 

[bibledoctor]

What is x?

Most likely "x" is a numeric variable used in Algebraic functions. Depending of what math courses you are studying for - it could just be a letter in the common English alphabet.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Don't take offense to it Mark, I am only throwing ideas around.

No offense. I just wanted you to spell out your own thoughts a bit more.

What are your thoughts on x?

Just kidding. I'll get back to you with my thoughts when I have more time.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Crandaddy]

Well, first of all, let's unpack our term. What is a terrorist? Here's my proposal for a definition:

A terrorist is a person who engages or has engaged in acts of psychological manipulation of other people by means of inducing fear in them.

If this definition is sufficient, then a terrorist would simply be a person to whom is added the property of engaging or having engaged in acts of psychological manipulation of other people by means of inducing fear in them.

This would be our x.

But of course the real question--i.e. the intended meaning of the question--is not "what is x?" but rather "what causes the property x to inhere in Man?" or perhaps "what motivates Man to cause it to be the case that the property x inheres in himself?".

I would say that any of a number of different things might motivate a man to be a terrorist as I've defined defined the term. In fact, I won't even venture a proposal for an element x that serves as the single underlying motivation for all cases of terrorism, unless perhaps it be some form or other of hedonistic self-satisfaction. Every possible case of terrorism that I can think of would be morally evil in some way or to some degree, and I equate moral evil with practical hedonism.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Let's also keep in mind that the label "terrorist" can be rather conveniently applied to anybody who opposes a specific hegemony.

Those people who opposed Hitler and tried to assassinate him? They were executed as terrorists.

The Chilenians and Argentinians who "disappeared" under the military juntas in those countries? Terrorists, the lot of them.

Gandhi and the Indian independence movement? Terrorists, of course.

The Chinese who wanted to outlaw the opium trade and were smacked down by the British empire? Terrorists.

The Americans who seceded from the crown and founded the United States? Why, terrorists, naturally.

That's not to say that terrorism does not exist. But we should take care lest we apply the label too carelessly, and/or omit forms of terrorism that do not confine to the "un-uniformed insurgent strapping a homemade bomb to his chest"-image.
I'd say that regular armed forces are perfectly capable of performing acts of terrorism, and in fact do so on a regular basis. Just because they are wearing a uniform, receive orders and have access to better equipment does not exclude them from the equation. Quite the contrary.

 

[oi_antz]

A terrorist is a person who engages or has engaged in acts of psychological manipulation of other people by means of inducing fear in them.

The one thing that makes atrocities possible is unwavering belief in a certain ideology, to the point where your most basic empathic and social instincts take a back seat in favour of The Idea.

Very concise, very relevant and very conclusive. Thanks!

 

[Eudaimonist]

What is "x"? In large part...

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Crandaddy]

What is "x"? In large part...

eudaimonia,

Mark

To be sure, terrorists can use bombs, but I don't think bombing people necessarily entails being a terrorist.

I believe there are possible conditions for just war (which would not entail terrorism, since I think terrorism is categorically evil), for example, and these might countenance dropping bombs on people.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

In reference to an excerpt of "The innocence of Muslims":

This was a particular dialogue in the film that stood out to me:
A question that I don't mind asking.

Notice here that not all terrorists are Muslim, and not all Muslims are terrorists. But there is a certain characteristic of a terrorist that can be reduced to an observable element.

I think x is contention. Contention can be observed in the religious and non-religious, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist or whoever.

But, I still don't understand what it is or what causes it, and why some people seem to be a catalyst for disaster.

Anyone?

the firmuka is logically absurd given that terrorisrs are men. So man plus x equals man. The implication is otherwise i am not being uncharitable. The only thing x cold be is "terrorist tendencies". Wha causes these probably differs from case to case. Again i thinkbthe implication might be "islam" but thats just stirring.

 

[Eudaimonist]

To be sure, terrorists can use bombs, but I don't think bombing people necessarily entails being a terrorist.

That's not his message.

He's saying that bombing people creates terrorists from the bombed population. Whether a war is just or not, it may create future terrorism. The wise nation understands this. Unwise nations are oblivious to this, and focus on justice alone or advantage alone.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tobias]

IMO it is the mistaken belief that God has said: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Some people believe that the quickest way to get close to God is to act upon their hatred for their enemies, justifying it under the belief that they are also hated by God.

Unfortunately the only way to please God is to keep His commandments. And those are to both love Him with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself!

 

[SithDoughnut]

X = The inclination and capability of causing a terrorist attack.

Being more specific leads to assumptions about what a particular terrorist stands for, and it is better to be in the dark about them than to have the wrong answer but think it is correct.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Let's define terrorism.

I'd define it as the use of deadly force with the specific goal of inducing fear (terror) within the targeted population. Hence, the name "terrorism".

Under this definition, the firebombing of Dresden and Hamburg or the deployment of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki do indeed qualify as acts of terrorism, because they were deliberately aimed at mostly civilian targets, with the specific goal of inducing terror in the respective nations.

I'm not sure just how much terrorism is involved in contemporary military campaigns and strategies; at least officially, civilians are regarded as taboo, and can only be killed as "collateral damage" in an assault on some specific military target.
And yet, thousands of non-combatants do lose their lives, their limbs, their homes, and their loved ones to American bombs and bullets. And I'm pretty sure that many of these will be much more open to Islamist propaganda after being put through that meat grinder; many people are not content of being a victim, or being told that their injury was a necessary byproduct of the Greater Good. Especially in cultures that put much stock in maintaining honour and avenging every slight by use of force.

 

[Tobias]

Under this definition, the firebombing of Dresden and Hamburg or the deployment of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki do indeed qualify as acts of terrorism, because they were deliberately aimed at mostly civilian targets, with the specific goal of inducing terror in the respective nations.

Well the difference now is, the USA is a superpower and we have evolved a couple of generations from when we had to resort to those type of tactics!


Now we can afford to buy super expensive smart bombs and try our best to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. But throughout history war has not been so sanitary. Often those who resort to the cruelest and most inhumane tactics are the ones that win. The Revolutionary war against Britain would not have been won had the Colonies fought out in the open by the same standards of battle that the Redcoats used.

But I thought we were talking about what drives religious fanatics to kill other people, not war in general.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

But I thought we were talking about what drives religious fanatics to kill other people, not war in general.

No, we were talking about terrorists. The term is not synonymous with "religious fanatic", specifically.

 

[Crandaddy]

Let's define terrorism.

I'd define it as the use of deadly force with the specific goal of inducing fear (terror) within the targeted population. Hence, the name "terrorism".

I'm not so sure that I would consider use of deadly force to be a necessary condition for terrorist activity.

Suppose someone were to administer a non-lethal dose of a powerful hallucinogen (LSD, perhaps) to his targeted victims and subsequently expose them to a host of frightening sights and sounds. His aim would not be to literally scare them to death, but he would intend to thoroughly terrify them. Would not such an individual qualify as a terrorist, even though he would not have utilized deadly force?

I might also quibble over the suggested plurality of “population” (if, that is, by the term you do indeed mean to suggest a plurality of persons). It seems to me that a terrorist might intend to terrorize no more than a single person.

Unfortunately, however, the terrorists we actually need worry about are much more wont to use deadly force than not, and they're also much more wont to target multiple, rather than solitary, persons. So, while I think your definition might be ever so slightly too narrow, it does succeed in picking out those specific terrorist activities of most practical relevance and concern.