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.