From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 18:14:54 +0800
To: John Deters <jad@dsddhc.com>
Subject: Re: The Net and Terrorism
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960703005232.009d18e4@labg30>
Message-ID: <199607030700.AAA12965@netcom3.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>Do you still not accept that we have a world that contains people who exist
>in conditions that foster and breed terrorists?

of course. but what TCM's writing often seems to hide is a cynicism
about these conditions. "there's nothing we can do about it. buy
a bulletproof jacket and avoid crowed downtown areas". I'm saying
this cynicism and isolationism tends to make the problem worse,
not better. you clearly agree that we must find the reasons that
terrorists are being bred, and work to eliminate those conditions.
TCM apparently would feel that such a thing is a waste of time.

another thing that annoys me about the TCM slant or "spin" is the
pervasive connotation in his writing that terrorism is going
to get far worse in the future. if so, I would say that is because
world conditions that breed terrorists are getting far worse. he
seems to convey the idea that the world is a nonsensical place
where things, like increases in terrorism, occur for no particular
reason.

keep in mind that Ruby Ridge and Waco happened only a few years
ago. that's a nanosecond in cosmic time, yet the terrorist 
repercussions are being felt immediately. I would say its very
visceral evidene that terrorists are responding to events and
are not just madmen out for the fun of killing people.  there's
a bit of that of course..

>So, do you not accept that we have the environment right here that can breed
>violence and discontent?

it's a fatalistic way of putting it. yes I agree that such an environment
exists. no, I don't believe there is nothing that can be done about it.
no, I don't believe that everything that can be done about it has been
done about it. far from the case. my point in the essay.

>So your point here is one of *agreement* that human nature will produce
>psychological profiles of people who commit acts of terror.

no, I specifically reject that insanity and violence are "normal"
aspects of human behavior. merely because they have been around
for centuries does not prove they are normal, only how warped
the world has become such that abnormality is considered normal.

>Violence is here.  It's been present since recorded history.  We've gotten
>pretty good at it, actually.  I think the record speaks pretty clearly that
>violence continues to be a part of human behavior, despite any efforts made
>to stop it.

what your argument amounts to is essentially "well gosh, if there was
a way to get rid of violence we would have discovered it by now". not
if you are cynical, pessimistic, closeminded, and believe that violence
is simply a part of life.

>As I said above, we can reduce some of the breeding grounds, but we can not
>eradicate them all.  And if one were to conduct a study correlating racist
>attitudes with education with numbers of acts of terror, we might find a
>direct correlation.

no, but I believe you can eradicate virtually all the most extreme "swamplike
breeding grounds" that lead to the most insane terrorism such as
OKC. would OKC have happened if neither ruby ridge or Waco happened?
a compelling case can be made...

>The U.S. has a level of tolerance for diversity that I only recently came to
>appreciate.

I agree. but it's not optimal. it's fantastic compared to the rest of
the world, though, I agree. good anecdote.

>I am more than willing to agree with you that elimination of hatred and
>prejudice will go farther than any law enforcement measures to reduce
>terrorist acts.  However, my point, and I believe this is Tim's point, too,
>is that it will *never* eliminate these acts, and that there must be other
>ways of dealing with the problems that occur.

disagree. terrorism on the scale of OKC is largely unprecedented in
American history. I believe you are conflating degrees of violence.
and behind your and Tim's argument is that "there is a point at
which it is a waste of time to try to put any more work into 
eradicating terrorism, because it is inevitable". 

>Look at the Irish Question:  they want independance from a government they
>deem undesirable.  Look at the arabian terrorist bombings of Americans in
>Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, etc.:  they want to drive the U.S. Army out.

the point is that there is no physical strategic value from bombing
symbols.  I was making the point that terrorism is extremely symbolic
at the root. I'm not saying either warfare or terrorism is better
than the other. they're both very evil. but it seems to me that
people like TCM who equate terrorist activities with what governments
do are doing a grave disservice to civilization. you can find isolated
examples where governments behave like terrorist organizations, but
their primary purpose is to avoid such situations.

>You may think that you hold every answer to terrorism in your hand, that
>hugs and kisses before bedtime will make the evil monsters under the bed go
>away.

bzzzzzzt. what I am pointing out is that what Tim is essentially saying,
as you seem to be, that trying to combat terrorism is a waste of time
because it is a fact of life, is erroneous in my view. it is a common
libertarian argument that goes, "criminality is everywhere, so why try
to stop it?"  a rather juvenile ideology.  may you live in your reality and
see what it is like. hint: the current one we are living in is not
one in which the government does not try to fight terrorism.

    The point of Tim's essay was that, yes, the net can be used by the
>evil monsters, and yes, the evil monsters are here, and no, the evil
>monsters are not going away any time soon.  Why did you feel it necessary to
>try to slam his fairly well-researched and quite obvious conclusion?

because, from my past experience, it seems Timmy's wildest 
fantasies are always contained in the paragraphs
in which he says, "now, I'm not advocating this or anything...."