TERRORISM THROUGH THE AGES

There’s a rather smug email being passed around - a multiple choice questionnaire in which numerous terrorist acts are the question and the answer is always something like: “Muslim Extremists under the Age of 30”. This mock quiz is intended to show just how animalistic Muslim “extremists” are and as some form of justification for going to war. Mostly what it stands for is a dehumanization of Muslims. A way of saying that they are morally reprehensible such that killing them is to be justified. This got me thinking about the magnitude of what they have perpetrated upon America and if there was some comparable actions that the United States has (historically) taken which could show that the Muslim behavior is rather normal. A simple Google search later and I has numerous instances of American atrocities which oddly enough seem to dwarf whatever the Muslim Terrorists have perpetrated upon the United States. To be brief I will set forth a brief consolidated list of these acts (which go back 200 years) as follows:

The CIA trained and managed Iran's dreaded SAVAK secret police which tortured and murdered countless people.

In 1953 the CIA initiated “Operation Phoenix”, a program of torture and murder of civilians in Vietnam.

In 1958 the CIA hired Saddam Hussein to assassinate the President of Iraq - Abdel Karim Qassim. Resulting in countless deaths and atrocities.

In the spring of 1864 the USA launched a campaign of violence against the Cheyenne Indians and their allies, killing "any and all Indians" and razing their villages AFTER THEY HAD SURRENDERED!

The USA dropped two atom bombs on Japan killing over 200,000 civilians.

In 1953 the CIA organized a coup which overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims.

In December 1989 the USA wiped out a large tenement barrio in Panama City leaving 15,000 people homeless, (officially) 523 plus dead and 3,324-something wounded.

A Pentagon agency document describes 320 alleged incidents of atrocities against Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians (not including the 1968 My Lai massacre) and who committed them. 320!

The USA dropped more bombs on Laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World War II such that a quarter of all Laotians will eventually become refugees, many living in caves.

In 1964 the CIA backed a military coup in Brazil to overthrow the democratically elected government of Joao Goulart causing the junta that replaces it (over the next two decades) to become one of the most bloodthirsty in history, creating Latin America's first death squads, or bands of secret police who hunt down "communists" for torture, interrogation and murder?

In 1981 the CIA begins selling arms to Iran at high prices, using the profits to arm the Contras fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua?

On March 16, 1968, the USA assaulted the Vietnamese village of My Lai and the surrounding area murdering 400 to 500 Vietnamese civilians?

So while the Muslim Terrorists killed American citizens on September 11th, do we really have a right to be outraged? Do we have a right to object to their animal behavior when we’re on the same page? I guess what I mostly object to is American Hypocrisy - that is to point fingers at the rest of the evil-doers and forget were from the same fabric. To say that we are morally superior when we are in fact morally similar.

Some would attempt to justify American Terrorism with some contextual history. To place these atrocities in to some historical context is absurd. The correct context is “we are human” - any other context (historical, factual) would simply be an attempt to justify the abhorrent actions of our country and thereby exasperate the actions which are perpetrated against us - there is no historical context which is required to recognize that atrocities have been committed.

These types of atrocities have been happening over the course of human history, am we’re not the first pack to mask our actions in the shadows of morality. The Nazis, The Crusades, the Medieval or Episcopal Inquisition, the Spanish Inquisition, the Portuguese Inquisition and the Roman Inquisition come to mind. Immoral acts presented as moral for the sake (I suggest) of suppressing individual morality such that immoral behavior could continue.

I would say that human tendencies prevent even the smartest among us from recognizing that the perpetration of “acts of terror” toward control and dominance are the norm - even for we Americas. And I further think that we and every pack, group, or country has a self-inflated idea of our own worth and morality. This is systemically human-natural - as we humans are programmed to defend our packs in all instances. That would make recognition of our packs inherent negative similarities to our enemies almost impossible (if not impossible). As such, the atrocities I list are an example of the fallacy in being out-raged at “terrorism” toward we Americans. Our “historical terrorism” dwarfs anything that has been perpetrated upon us. And, the animal acts of attaining dominant are rather human and historical indeed.

A Lack of Duality In The Mind of A Psychopath

Without much of an introcution to this topic, I will note that I think that psychopaths are essentially amoral. Or put another way, they are simply animals acting solely on their programming without any influence from that part of us that is moral. Why this occurs I am not entirely sure - I would suggest that things like environment, genetics, experience, etc. play a role. Analogous to this behavior is the addicted drug user who behaves in an amoral fashion to obtain his high - stealing from even his mother for drugs. These are similar in that psychopaths are required to act selfishly for similar biological needs. Their focus is simply on their programming and not their moral side.

Keep in mind that conscious thought and the ability to acknowledge that one’s behavior is immoral are two different things. The drug addict is conscious of his actions when he robs his mother to feed his habit but his behavior is not subject to his ability to be moral. The distinction is between consciousness and conscience. Psychopaths tend to be driven to a greater extent by instinctive behavior than are the rest of us. They are focused solely on their otherwise innate genetic programs which drive their behavior - the behaviors which the rest of us are able to attach a corresponding out-rage or guilt to: they have somehow eliminated their morality from their being (and their behaviors). In a person with an ability to make moral distinctions there is a constant balancing of instincts (wants and desires) and conscience (not to be confused with our consciousness). I think it’s a conflict and a duality with either side taking control of any given situation and any given behavior. There are some whose morality trumps their instincts constantly and some whose instinct are dominant. Guilt often playing a role in how we behave. Some waiver back and forth between animal and moral behavior with no clear direction. With psychopathic behavior the moral side is not functioning as an influence - permitting the psychopath to act simply as an animal - with no guilt or remorse.

Some might argue that it’s the instincts of the psychopath that are different. That they lack the “programming” for things like empathy and compassion. I don’t think so because it seems to me that animals don’t have a moral code. They act according to their programming and things like self-sacrifice and sharing are not their common attributes - I'm not sure morality exists at all out side we humans. I think there is some part of our being that drives our behavior to be moral and I don’t think it’s programming (instincts, etc.). And if you have read my blog I believe it’s the same thing that many people have labeled “god” or “Allah” or “spirit” or “soul” or a host of other similar names. That is not to say that I believe our morality is some form of a floating white god with white hair and a robe. Just that the distinction between good and evil is often made in this very simplistic thoughtless way.

To summarize, I think we do have conscious thought, and a conscience. Do we have a choice between acting like an animal and behaving morally? I would say not in all instances. Choice is (for me) not a good description of what may be at play. Does the drug addict have a choice in stealing to satisfy his biological need to get high? Does the starving man have a choice in not stealing the food? Does the psychopath have a choice in not treating people like objects? We could debate that point but I think that at some point the choice to be moral is lost to dominating programs and instinctual behaviors (“forgive them, father for they know not what they do”). I also believe that both moral growth and animal behavior can be reinforced in an individual. That is to say biological reinforcement can lead to habitual behavior. Similarly, moral behavior can lead to even more moral behavior. When we say people can grow in moral character we mean they can become more moral. When we say people can become and act like animals what we really mean is that their behavior is central to their programming.

I am not convinced of arguments which profess that morality is a form of reasoned behavior or is itself hard-wired or instinctive. It seems clear that even if morality developed from the evolution of a higher level of intelligence (which I believe it did), this would not necessarily negate the possibility that such a development is not now contrary to the very things which permitted that evolution - to our instinctual behaviors and programming.

Michael Medved and the Philosophy of Conservative Elimination

I am going to briefly revisit my theory regarding conservative values. I am incited to do so by today’s Michael Medved radio show and his comments on homelessness. On the show today Mr. Medved noted that homeless people drive down the property values of otherwise hard-working individuals. He also noted that homeless people should either be imprisoned (eliminated) or put in to shelters (controlled). He took issue with a caller who indicated that he fed the homeless on a weekly basis. Even though the homeless this caller was feeding were children and Vietnam veterans.

Mr. Medved’s position clearly reinforces my belief that the typical conservative point of view is both hypocritical and immoral. As I noted in a previous blog entry, conservatives values are squarely on animal modalities. Primarily those of protection (of wealth), elimination of threats (to their positions and possessions through any and all means) and to a lesser degree control (control of their problems). The focus of their energies is protecting their positions, their assets and their wealth. They have no humanity and they typically place very low value on the souls of human beings.

If I am not mistaken although Mr. Medved professes to be Jewish. And like most hypocrites he behaves contrary to his religion and his god. Mr. Medved sees no value in feeding the homeless because such an action does not “eliminate” the problem. Eliminating Mr. Medved’s problem (i.e. protection of his property value) is more important that some moral idea like compassion - despite the fact that the value placed upon such an intangible is to be sought:

[If] you offer your compassion to the hungry and satisfy the famished creature, then shall your light shine in darkness. [Isaiah 58:10) .

Assuming that the homeless person was not Jewish, Mr. Medved may be have been able to avoid the teachings of his own religion:

“The highest level of all is the one who supports the hand of a Jew who is falling and gives to him (1) a gift or (2) a loan or (3) creates a partnership with him or (4) creates (invents) work for him in order to strengthen his hand, before he becomes dependent on asking [for assistance]. Concerning this, it says, ‘And you shall strengthen him as a stranger and as a resident-settler that he should live among you’ (Leviticus 25:35) that is, support him before he falls and becomes needy.” (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Gifts to the Poor 10:7)

However, Mr. Medved made no distinction between a Jewish and Non-Jewish homeless person. He simply wants them either eliminated or controlled in a such a way that his material position is protected.

As I noted previously, conservatives not only seek to eliminate their problems without giving any consideration to human souls, they often create the problems through their failure to share their wealth, or by denying people the means to solve the problem on their own accord. Without complicating this blog with a long social dialogue, I’ll just briefly mention what I believe are the root causes of homelessness. These would include primarily a lack of affordable rental housing, an increase in poverty, a decline in social programs (including public assistance) and mental illness. And note that a moral person has values placed on things like compassion, love, sharing, caring, self-sacrifice, creating joy and happiness. And that animals focus on what is relevant in the material world - including position, property, and wealth (especially accumulation). In light of these differing values, I wonder which side Mr. Medved falls on? I also wonder if (through some calamity in his life or even some global calamity) Mr. Medved would like to be treated as he would treat the homeless? If a meteor struck the earth tomorrow and Mr. Medved was left without a cave to live in and no means of creating any wealth for himself and his family (food, etc.) would he like a nice jail cell somewhere? I wonder if Mr. Medved was not wealthy and established in a post apocalyptic world if he would frown upon a hand-out of food from a kind and compassionate human? While some would like to hope that Mr. Medved is (in fact) placed in that position some day, I hope instead that he becomes more human; that he considers the plight of less fortunate people, that he becomes more compassionate; and that he grows spiritually and not materialistically. Good Luck Mr. Medved!