Best Political Cartoons

[Askold]

There is a nice essay to go with the picture:
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/11/what-is-the-differencebetweenspreekillersandterrorists.html

[largeham]

There is a nice essay to go with the picture:
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/11/what-is-the-differencebetweenspreekillersandterrorists.html

The initial reaction of a lot of victims, onlookers and commenters to the Boston bombing, before anyone knew who was behind it, was an anguished Why? There are of course some sensible reasons for needing to know this; if the perpetrators had accomplices or backers who might be planning further attacks, the police and government should know about it as soon as possible. But I don't believe the real, reason behind the public's urgent need to know the motives of the bombers was a practical one. After Boston, I wanted to know Why too; what I still don't understand is why we needed to know why. Rationally, this question doesn't make any more sense when asked about a terrorist attack or mass shooting than it does when it’s about a tornado, or cancer. It's essentially what Job asked the whirlwind...

To seek to understand the motives of such people is, in a way, to cede them too much credence and dignity. Who cares what was going on in someone's head when he decided to blow up a parade or shoot up a grade school?

Wut? Seriously? The point of asking 'Why?' is not to lend credence or legitimacy, but to understand the reason behind whatever you are looking at. Unless you remove the cause/s for terrorist attacks/random shooting etc, nothing will change. There is a practical use behind asking why.

[Shane for Wax]

There is a nice essay to go with the picture:
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/11/what-is-the-differencebetweenspreekillersandterrorists.html

"At this point, being a member of al-Qaeda is sort of like being a member of Anonymous — if you claim you're in it, maybe you are."

Um. What. The author of that essay seems to have a clear misunderstanding of the whole situation and the differences between spree shooter and terrorist.

[kefkaownsall]

Terrorists can often be spree shooters but a terrorist needs a goal something that he is fighting for.  Brevick for instance was fighting to free Norway from phantom Muslims

[Shane for Wax]

I can't remember but I think this is only one of like three gif cartoons from Bennett.

[Askold]

"At this point, being a member of al-Qaeda is sort of like being a member of Anonymous — if you claim you're in it, maybe you are."

Um. What. The author of that essay seems to have a clear misunderstanding of the whole situation and the differences between spree shooter and terrorist.

Actually I think at one point that was what Osama was going for. Al-Qaeda did always have a centralized official leadership unlike Anonymous but at the same time they approved of decentralization and have allowed otherwise unconnected terrorists to do attacks in the name of their organisation. (Unless I have seriously dreamed up this and horribly misled, I'll try to find some article to back up these claims.)

[Shane for Wax]

If you mean the fact that they released information on how to make your own bombs and such that is true. But that's not the same as being a part of the organization. Which is where I have the problem.

[Askold]

Ok. I tried looking and the closes to what I had remembered was in this:
http://al-sahwa.blogspot.fi/2010/01/al-qaeda-franchise-or-conglomerate.html

And even then I had misunderstood some things. Specifically that I thought that Al-Qaeda would be best considered a "franchise" while that article makes a good claim that "conglomerate" is a more appropriate business model. Basically, they do allow other terrorist groups to use their name and in fact actively recruit other already formed groups to join Al-Qaeda. But rather than replacing the other groups methods with their own they allow them much freedom in operations and methods, mainly being interested in results and being able to say "We did that" whenever there is a terrorist attack.

The difference being that if they were a franchise like, say Starbucks, they would also make all the new additions into copies of themselves rather than allow them operational freedom. But as I assumed, getting in is pretty easy, though perhaps not as easy as being part of Anonymous as I assumed.

And I guess since the whole point of Anonymous is that there is no central command and anyone can claim to be part of it there is a difference with Al-Qaeda (I mean other than not being mass murderers and islamic terrorists) in that if you join Al-Qaeda the main group does give you orders. It also means that there is guidance and education available from the main group, which makes them dangerous.

[Random Gal]

Originally in an article linked on the Best of Social Justice Thread:

[Lt. Fred]

There is a nice essay to go with the picture:
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/11/what-is-the-differencebetweenspreekillersandterrorists.html

The initial reaction of a lot of victims, onlookers and commenters to the Boston bombing, before anyone knew who was behind it, was an anguished Why? There are of course some sensible reasons for needing to know this; if the perpetrators had accomplices or backers who might be planning further attacks, the police and government should know about it as soon as possible. But I don't believe the real, reason behind the public's urgent need to know the motives of the bombers was a practical one. After Boston, I wanted to know Why too; what I still don't understand is why we needed to know why. Rationally, this question doesn't make any more sense when asked about a terrorist attack or mass shooting than it does when it’s about a tornado, or cancer. It's essentially what Job asked the whirlwind...

To seek to understand the motives of such people is, in a way, to cede them too much credence and dignity. Who cares what was going on in someone's head when he decided to blow up a parade or shoot up a grade school?

Wut? Seriously? The point of asking 'Why?' is not to lend credence or legitimacy, but to understand the reason behind whatever you are looking at. Unless you remove the cause/s for terrorist attacks/random shooting etc, nothing will change. There is a practical use behind asking why.

Nine tenths of minority group terrorism is the over-reaction* to legitimate grievances. That's true of Northern Ireland, Palestine, Iraq and a host of other places and times. Obviously, part of a decent, serious counter-insurgency response must be to alleviate those grievances; this is how the Northern Ireland Troubles ended, for instance. African terrorism against whites in South Africa (which was serious, at times) basically ended as soon as apartheid did. If this response is not considered- perhaps as part of a suite of responses- this is a good clue that what is being undertaken is not counter-insurgency at all, but terrorism of a different sort. If you will not even consider stopping the evil thing you are doing that is angering people so much they are willing to give up their lives to stop it- if you value your oppression more than you value the lives of your citizens, then perhaps it is not them that is the fundamental problem.

* This is a poor way to put this. I mean mis-reaction, but that isn't a word. I don't mean to suggest that the grievances behind, for instance, the Tamil Tigers or the Mau Mau were less serious than their reaction to them, just that a terrorist response almost never improves a situation.

[Askold]

Well I don't agree about everything with Kreider but I think his "let's ignore them and not even bother to find out why they did this" was more about the medias reaction to spree killers. Some of them clearly wanted to go out "in a blaze of glory" and were in fact hoping that they would be on the news because of the slaughter they caused. There even are some people who celebrate mass murderers.

Like Fred said for a terrorist/guerilla movement to survive for long they need the support of the people and there usually is some reason for their support. Wether that reason is hostile occupation, dictatorship, rising nationalistic-identity or even religious reasons going after the cause is more effective than simply fighting the symptom.

Not that it would always be that easy, for example having some region of your country wanting to break off into a new country is quite common (The Basque, Quebec, Northern Ireland, Palestine, etc.) and few countries look towards that favourably even if they haven't been mistreating those citizens.

EDIT: Quick add, not all of those groups I listed are terrorists. In fact, I doubt the Quebecians for example would support their members starting a wave of terrorism against Canada. There simply is no support for violence as Canada hasn't given cause for it. Which is unlike the Palestinian case, for example.

[Barbarella]

There is a nice essay to go with the picture:
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/11/what-is-the-differencebetweenspreekillersandterrorists.html

The initial reaction of a lot of victims, onlookers and commenters to the Boston bombing, before anyone knew who was behind it, was an anguished Why? There are of course some sensible reasons for needing to know this; if the perpetrators had accomplices or backers who might be planning further attacks, the police and government should know about it as soon as possible. But I don't believe the real, reason behind the public's urgent need to know the motives of the bombers was a practical one. After Boston, I wanted to know Why too; what I still don't understand is why we needed to know why. Rationally, this question doesn't make any more sense when asked about a terrorist attack or mass shooting than it does when it’s about a tornado, or cancer. It's essentially what Job asked the whirlwind...

To seek to understand the motives of such people is, in a way, to cede them too much credence and dignity. Who cares what was going on in someone's head when he decided to blow up a parade or shoot up a grade school?

Wut? Seriously? The point of asking 'Why?' is not to lend credence or legitimacy, but to understand the reason behind whatever you are looking at. Unless you remove the cause/s for terrorist attacks/random shooting etc, nothing will change. There is a practical use behind asking why.

Nine tenths of minority group terrorism is the over-reaction* to legitimate grievances. That's true of Northern Ireland, Palestine, Iraq and a host of other places and times. Obviously, part of a decent, serious counter-insurgency response must be to alleviate those grievances; this is how the Northern Ireland Troubles ended, for instance. African terrorism against whites in South Africa (which was serious, at times) basically ended as soon as apartheid did. If this response is not considered- perhaps as part of a suite of responses- this is a good clue that what is being undertaken is not counter-insurgency at all, but terrorism of a different sort. If you will not even consider stopping the evil thing you are doing that is angering people so much they are willing to give up their lives to stop it- if you value your oppression more than you value the lives of your citizens, then perhaps it is not them that is the fundamental problem.

* This is a poor way to put this. I mean mis-reaction, but that isn't a word. I don't mean to suggest that the grievances behind, for instance, the Tamil Tigers or the Mau Mau were less serious than their reaction to them, just that a terrorist response almost never improves a situation.

I agree. If the Israeli Govt., for example, didn't treat the Palestinians like sewage & the two sides buried the hatchet, that alone would put a damper on Islamic Fundyism & Terrorism. If the USA handled Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. with a boatload of humanitarianism (while genuinely learning about & respecting the citizens people) rather than blowing stuff up, things would be different. Of course, having some military types around for safety & self-defense (in case of weirdos like Taliban) would be wise but a militaristic, invasion approach is just plain stupid.

This, of course, makes Far-Right Western Terrorists even more evil. Guys like the Tsarnev brothers may have had some legit grievances behind their insanity but Breivik just wanted to preserve his bigoted backwards "white privilege".

I see nothing wrong with Western/1st World folks going to 2nd & 3rd World countries to improve things per se, I just think it's wrong & imperialistic to just charge in & not consider the cultures, feelings & mindset of the citizens.

It's sad because, the charge of "Imperialism/White Man's Burden/Cultural Appropriation" can really hamper people who genuinely want to help out. Why can't folks in the West allowed to make up for their mistakes & undo their screw-ups?

That said, again, it's understandable. The West has been misguided & stupid in trying to help & made things worse. This produces all sorts of mistrust, thus making future aid harder.

Better to send unbiased sociologists to said cultures (perhaps of similar ethnicity to the culture/society in question) to live among them & UNDERSTAND them first...then use that knowledge to better help out while considering the people you're helping.

Originally in an article linked on the Best of Social Justice Thread:

This is too awesome for words! Food for thought!

Well I don't agree about everything with Kreider but I think his "let's ignore them and not even bother to find out why they did this" was more about the medias reaction to spree killers. Some of them clearly wanted to go out "in a blaze of glory" and were in fact hoping that they would be on the news because of the slaughter they caused. There even are some people who celebrate mass murderers.

Like Fred said for a terrorist/guerilla movement to survive for long they need the support of the people and there usually is some reason for their support. Wether that reason is hostile occupation, dictatorship, rising nationalistic-identity or even religious reasons going after the cause is more effective than simply fighting the symptom.

Not that it would always be that easy, for example having some region of your country wanting to break off into a new country is quite common (The Basque, Quebec, Northern Ireland, Palestine, etc.) and few countries look towards that favourably even if they haven't been mistreating those citizens.

EDIT: Quick add, not all of those groups I listed are terrorists. In fact, I doubt the Quebecians for example would support their members starting a wave of terrorism against Canada. There simply is no support for violence as Canada hasn't given cause for it. Which is unlike the Palestinian case, for example.

Agreed. One of the main reasons for the seemingly weekly mass-shootings is because notoriety is one of the factors. Shooters should remain anonymous or semi-anonymous! Don't plaster their mugs & names all over the place! Don't publish their manifestos or pre-shooting videos! Just refer to them as "The Columbine Shooters", "The V-Tech Shooters" "The Aurora Shooter", "The Norway Camp Shooter", "The Boston Bombers", etc.

You can still speculate on their motives & such but keep the perp(s) nameless, faceless & voiceless. Same goes for serial killers, assassins & such - "The Kennedy Assassin", "The Lennon Assassin", "The McDonald's Shooter", "The 42 Caliber Killer (rather than 'Son of Sam' which refers to the killer's statements)", "The Volkswagen Killer", "The Tate-LaBianca Killers/Ringleader", "The Cleveland Triple-Kidnapper" etc.

[Lt. Fred]

Nine tenths of minority group terrorism is the over-reaction* to legitimate grievances. That's true of Northern Ireland, Palestine, Iraq and a host of other places and times. Obviously, part of a decent, serious counter-insurgency response must be to alleviate those grievances; this is how the Northern Ireland Troubles ended, for instance. African terrorism against whites in South Africa (which was serious, at times) basically ended as soon as apartheid did. If this response is not considered- perhaps as part of a suite of responses- this is a good clue that what is being undertaken is not counter-insurgency at all, but terrorism of a different sort. If you will not even consider stopping the evil thing you are doing that is angering people so much they are willing to give up their lives to stop it- if you value your oppression more than you value the lives of your citizens, then perhaps it is not them that is the fundamental problem.

* This is a poor way to put this. I mean mis-reaction, but that isn't a word. I don't mean to suggest that the grievances behind, for instance, the Tamil Tigers or the Mau Mau were less serious than their reaction to them, just that a terrorist response almost never improves a situation.

This, of course, makes Far-Right Western Terrorists even more evil. Guys like the Tsarnev brothers may have had some legit grievances behind their insanity but Breivik just wanted to preserve his bigoted backwards "white privilege".

I think our response to these organisations is often revealing. Take Italy. Everyone has heard of the Baader-Meinhof Gang, and maybe even the Italian Revolutionary Front, both of whom operated in Italy. Both of them were (rightly) the target of major police efforts to stop them. But they were trivial compared to the true Italian terrorist groups, firstly the fascists like the Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari, and secondly the Mafia. These killed far more people, did far more damage and were far more threatening to the state. The amount of resources devoted to crushing them (and indeed the amount of media attention on them) is and almost always has been minimal compared to the less dangerous left wing groups. Why? Because left wing politics is dangerous and right wing politics is not. The importance of a terrorist act to the Italian state has nothing to do with the act, but the motivation behind it, and the propaganda value to the state.

Also, these groups make up most of the 10% or so that are not fundamentally motivated by some legitimate grievance.

I see nothing wrong with Western/1st World folks going to 2nd & 3rd World countries to improve things per se, ... It's sad because, the charge of "Imperialism/White Man's Burden/Cultural Appropriation" can really hamper people who genuinely want to help out. Why can't folks in the West allowed to make up for their mistakes & undo their screw-ups?
 

I do!

[Yla]

Nine tenths of minority group terrorism is the over-reaction* to legitimate grievances. That's true of Northern Ireland, Palestine, Iraq and a host of other places and times. Obviously, part of a decent, serious counter-insurgency response must be to alleviate those grievances; this is how the Northern Ireland Troubles ended, for instance. African terrorism against whites in South Africa (which was serious, at times) basically ended as soon as apartheid did. If this response is not considered- perhaps as part of a suite of responses- this is a good clue that what is being undertaken is not counter-insurgency at all, but terrorism of a different sort. If you will not even consider stopping the evil thing you are doing that is angering people so much they are willing to give up their lives to stop it- if you value your oppression more than you value the lives of your citizens, then perhaps it is not them that is the fundamental problem.

* This is a poor way to put this. I mean mis-reaction, but that isn't a word. I don't mean to suggest that the grievances behind, for instance, the Tamil Tigers or the Mau Mau were less serious than their reaction to them, just that a terrorist response almost never improves a situation.

This, of course, makes Far-Right Western Terrorists even more evil. Guys like the Tsarnev brothers may have had some legit grievances behind their insanity but Breivik just wanted to preserve his bigoted backwards "white privilege".

I think our response to these organisations is often revealing. Take Italy. Everyone has heard of the Baader-Meinhof Gang, and maybe even the Italian Revolutionary Front, both of whom operated in Italy. Both of them were (rightly) the target of major police efforts to stop them. But they were trivial compared to the true Italian terrorist groups, firstly the fascists like the Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari, and secondly the Mafia. These killed far more people, did far more damage and were far more threatening to the state. The amount of resources devoted to crushing them (and indeed the amount of media attention on them) is and almost always has been minimal compared to the less dangerous left wing groups. Why? Because left wing politics is dangerous and right wing politics is not. The importance of a terrorist act to the Italian state has nothing to do with the act, but the motivation behind it, and the propaganda value to the state.

Also, these groups make up most of the 10% or so that are not fundamentally motivated by some legitimate grievance.

Nitpick, the Red Army Faction (aka Baader-Meinhof gang) was a German group, and while they occasionally struck targets or cooperated with groups outside Germany (most famously the Landshut hijacking by Palestinians), Italy was not a center of their attention in any way. I agree with your observation and am not opposed to your conclusion, but you're probably mixing up some names.

I see nothing wrong with Western/1st World folks going to 2nd & 3rd World countries to improve things per se, ... It's sad because, the charge of "Imperialism/White Man's Burden/Cultural Appropriation" can really hamper people who genuinely want to help out. Why can't folks in the West allowed to make up for their mistakes & undo their screw-ups?
 

I do!

Not understandy, please elaboratey.

[Lt. Fred]

Nine tenths of minority group terrorism is the over-reaction* to legitimate grievances. That's true of Northern Ireland, Palestine, Iraq and a host of other places and times. Obviously, part of a decent, serious counter-insurgency response must be to alleviate those grievances; this is how the Northern Ireland Troubles ended, for instance. African terrorism against whites in South Africa (which was serious, at times) basically ended as soon as apartheid did. If this response is not considered- perhaps as part of a suite of responses- this is a good clue that what is being undertaken is not counter-insurgency at all, but terrorism of a different sort. If you will not even consider stopping the evil thing you are doing that is angering people so much they are willing to give up their lives to stop it- if you value your oppression more than you value the lives of your citizens, then perhaps it is not them that is the fundamental problem.

* This is a poor way to put this. I mean mis-reaction, but that isn't a word. I don't mean to suggest that the grievances behind, for instance, the Tamil Tigers or the Mau Mau were less serious than their reaction to them, just that a terrorist response almost never improves a situation.

This, of course, makes Far-Right Western Terrorists even more evil. Guys like the Tsarnev brothers may have had some legit grievances behind their insanity but Breivik just wanted to preserve his bigoted backwards "white privilege".

I think our response to these organisations is often revealing. Take Italy. Everyone has heard of the Baader-Meinhof Gang, and maybe even the Italian Revolutionary Front, both of whom operated in Italy. Both of them were (rightly) the target of major police efforts to stop them. But they were trivial compared to the true Italian terrorist groups, firstly the fascists like the Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari, and secondly the Mafia. These killed far more people, did far more damage and were far more threatening to the state. The amount of resources devoted to crushing them (and indeed the amount of media attention on them) is and almost always has been minimal compared to the less dangerous left wing groups. Why? Because left wing politics is dangerous and right wing politics is not. The importance of a terrorist act to the Italian state has nothing to do with the act, but the motivation behind it, and the propaganda value to the state.

Also, these groups make up most of the 10% or so that are not fundamentally motivated by some legitimate grievance.

Nitpick, the Red Army Faction (aka Baader-Meinhof gang) was a German group, and while they occasionally struck targets or cooperated with groups outside Germany (most famously the Landshut hijacking by Palestinians), Italy was not a center of their attention in any way. I agree with your observation and am not opposed to your conclusion, but you're probably mixing up some names.

I mean that they operated in Italy in the sense that they lived there at times and planned operations from there. The Italian police also chased them somewhat.

I see nothing wrong with Western/1st World folks going to 2nd & 3rd World countries to improve things per se, ... It's sad because, the charge of "Imperialism/White Man's Burden/Cultural Appropriation" can really hamper people who genuinely want to help out. Why can't folks in the West allowed to make up for their mistakes & undo their screw-ups?
 

I do!

Not understandy, please elaboratey.
[/quote][/quote]

The racism of a colonial power isn't the problem, it's a symptom. The problem is one country running another without permission and usually without meaningful participation. That is inherently a problem. The other problem is that no country ever uses force except in its own interests. Only very occasionally do those interests align with what should be done, in Bangladesh, for instance, and Cambodia.

So if you go invade someone else's country even with stated humanitarian motives, nine times out of ten your real motives will lead to the opposite effect.